Intentional deception of the public through a consensus study by Cook et al. – Another fall from grace of the media and science
Short summary (“Abstract”)
97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made.
This is roughly the result of the study by cognitive psychologist John Cook from 2013. (1) However, the study deliberately obscures the actual data base and gives a misleading summary of the results.
The general formulation that humans are causing climate change (somehow, to some small or large extent) is reformulated in a climate consensus handbook (also by Cook et al.) to mean that humans are causing climate change (100%).
The mainstream media adopts this formulation. However, this is fraud and intentional deception of the public. The actual study did not query or measure a consensus of this kind and could never come to such a result.
This can be easily proven by looking at the raw data from the study mentioned. The bottom line is: This alleged 97% approval of predominantly or even 100% man-made climate change never existed.
Corrections:
Corrections on January 21, 2020, see comment below.
Spelling corrections and additions due to orphaned links on May 24th, 2023
(A big thank you goes to Kristina for the editing.)
Introduction
John Cook, with the help of volunteers from the readers of the Skeptical Science site, examined the introductory abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers according to certain criteria. All publications that contained the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” were included in the selection.
He assigned these works to seven categories. The categories are:
The categories can be translated as…
1: Explicitly confirm AGW ( Anthropogenic Global Warming ) and attribute more than 50% of climate change to humans.
2: Explicitly confirm man-made climate change, but do not quantify or minimize the contribution.
3: Implicitly confirm man-made climate change (e.g. by mentioning it).
4: Take no position.
5: Minimize or at least implicitly reject man-made climate change
6: Minimize or explicitly reject man-made climate change, but do not quantify the proportion.
7: Minimize or explicitly reject man-made climate change and claim that the human contribution is less than 50%.
A systematic error is already apparent in this classification, because group 2 must at least overlap in content with groups 5, 6 and 7. Those who agree with man-made climate change but do not see it above 50% are actually essentially minimizing the human contribution (categories 5 and 6) or, by definition, see it below 50% (category 7). It is difficult to read whether the authors are more likely to agree or reject the anthropogenic contribution to climate change, especially when the short summaries ("abstracts") are, as usual, written very objectively and carefully, statements that provide a clear attribution are regularly missing make possible.
Cook et al. also admit that there were some difficulties with the categorizations:
“Initially […] 33% of confirmation reviews disagreed. The raters could then compare and justify or update their rating via the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Afterwards, […] 16% disagreed with the confirmation ratings; these were then solved by a third party.”
(Automatic translation from English)
In the case of 33%, later 16%, there were difficulties in the classification, which was then carried out by a third person, so to speak, by a judge's decision.
I also have my doubts about this publication when it comes to the implicit mention of man-made climate change. Cook et al. give the following text example:
“… carbon sequestration in the soil is important for curbing global climate change”
It's nice that people are talking about climate change here. However, no statement is made here about the human contribution to climate change. The vast majority of CO2 or carbon in the atmosphere is not produced by humans, so there is no compelling assumption here that the author assumes an anthropogenic influence just because he wants to bind carbon in the soil.
Tricks and number acrobatics
But let us first follow John Cook's thought processes with confidence. The question is, how do Cook et al. to 97%?
To do this, I used the original data (2) provided by Cook et al. were published and used a spreadsheet program to count how many scientific publications by Cook's employees were assigned to the individual categories. This calculation takes about 5 minutes.
The result was sobering. Just take a look for yourself:
First of all, it is important for the attentive reader that in the original work the detailed table above is not found in any form in the publication by Cook et al. is mentioned! A detailed list of the measurement results is missing. But I learned that you always have to present all measurement results. And since there are only seven simple number categories or the percentage values determined from them, there is no problem with space when printing.
For example, the fact that only 0.54% of all authors who write about climate change see humans as the main driver of the climate is systematically hidden from the reader.
This percentage actually appears throughout the Cook et al. article. don't open! Not as a table value, not in the running text.
Cook et al. However, they combine the partial results of categories 1 to 3 in their Table 3 into a subset and do not show us the detailed results. This inevitably leads to the question: Does the author of the study want to hide something here?
(Automatic translation of Table 3 from the work of Cook et al.)
It is also surprising that a category “Unsure about AGW” suddenly appears with 40 papers, because this is not clear from the original figures.
And here again the original data is not presented. Categories 5 to 7 are kept secret.
At least in the natural sciences, it is an iron rule that the analysis plan, i.e. the measurement methods and the handling of the measurement data, must be determined before the experiment begins. It is not allowed to deviate from this analysis plan, especially when studying living beings with behavioral expressions. This is set in such a way that any unwanted manipulative influence on the part of the researcher can be minimized as much as possible. But suddenly the scientific publications are clearly being completely reclassified. And also in categories that apparently did not exist when the study started. What's that supposed to mean?
Cook et al. write about it:
“After final assessments were completed, a random sample of 1,000 summaries in the No Position category was re-examined to distinguish those who expressed no opinion from those who expressed the view that the cause of GW [Global Warming] is uncertain .”
These samples, as can be seen from the following work, concerned the works that did not make any statements (category 4). What exactly came out of this is not revealed either. Was the result of the sample extrapolated to the total number of papers? Not specified. Why only a sample? Why weren't all summaries in the category examined for this question from the start? It seems to me that in retrospect there was a deviation from the original analysis plan.
Based on the shortcomings identified so far alone, one has to ask how this article was able to survive a peer review process.
Back to the actual raw data. Just 0.54% of scientific publications explicitly assign humans a predominant share of over 50% in climate change (category 1).
And in category 2 things don't look much better, only 7.72% are among those who believe that humans have a role in climate change, but do not comment on this in detail.
So how is Cook et al. got to 97%?
First, Cook et al. all papers that express some kind of affirmative statement about climate change in the abstracts (categories 1 to 3), as we see in Table 3 above, are combined into a subset.
That's quite remarkable! Above all, the completely vague statements from category 3 on climate change and the widely varying opinions from category 2 on the human contribution to climate change (from a lot to a little) were simply merged here with those who were absolutely certain about the majority (>50%) of humans are affected by climate change. Followed by the claim that all scientists concerned agree on “man-made climate change”. An ambiguous formulation.
The original summary by Cook et al. states:
„Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming .“
The automatic translation turns it into:
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
The English original is worded more generally than the German translation. The statement there goes something like “man is causing global warming”. This can mean anything from a few percent to over 50%.
From the handbook on climate change ( https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Consensus_Handbook_German_A4.pdf ) it becomes clear on page one what the authors wanted to express.
“97% of climate scientists have concluded from the evidence that humans are causing current climate change.”
This manual, which is also available in German translation, speaks of “ current climate change causes ”. The result is the statement that humans are 100% responsible for global warming. However, agreement with this 100% thesis was not found in the work of Cook et al. measured or queried. It is therefore a scientifically completely inadmissible conclusion and misleading the readers.
The compelling impression is that Cook et al. deliberately use this ambiguous formulation in your scientific publication in order to then falsify the statement in other publications.
Using categories 1 to 3 from the scientific publication by Cook et al. summarized, this amounts to a total of 32.62% of all scientific papers. This value is far from 97%.
Now comes the most serious trick: Similar to the federal election, Cook et al. simply removed the abstentions from the bill. In this case, these are all works in category 4 with almost 67%. Due to this mathematical sleight of hand, the results only related to around 33% of the total sample size. And then at the end there is the statement that the overwhelming majority (97%) of scientists recognize a man-made influence on the climate. Quite a few popular media outlets then make the point that over 97% of scientists see humans as having a significant part in climate change.
This is remarkable! There is actually a broad consensus that there is a human contribution to climate change. With a few exceptions, we also find this consensus among very critical voices on the topic. However, they are generally labeled as “climate deniers” because they do not agree that humans account for over 50% or even over 80-90% of global warming. And like the study by Cook et al. shows, the vast majority of scientists actually do not agree with the thesis in their publications that humans play a predominant role in climate change.
Raw data: misattributed publications
But the sporty handling of data does not end there. I randomly looked through the raw data in category 2 and checked whether the individual scientific publications were correctly assigned to the individual categories.
Regarding category 2, Cook et al. write that they have classified everything there that explicitly confirms the anthropogenic contribution to climate change but does not quantify or minimize the human contribution more precisely (in the original: “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize”).
I therefore necessarily expect that the introductory summaries (“abstracts”) make a clear connection between human activities and the rise in temperature or climate change, even if the extent of the influence is not discussed further.
However, there are actually some works here that were simply incorrectly assigned to category 2 because this is precisely the assignment that is not made by the summaries. I would like to show just one of the publications in its entirety as an example:
Beispiel: Thomas R. Karl, George Kukla et al.: Global Warming – Evidence For Asymmetric Diurnal Temperature-change. In Geophysical Research Letters. 1991
The summary is:
„Analyses of the year-month mean maximum and minimum surface thermometric record have now been updated and expanded to cover three large countries in the Northern Hemisphere (the contiguous United States, the Soviet Union, and the People’s Republic of China). They indicate that most of the warming which has occurred in these regions over the past four decades can be attributed to an increase of mean minimum (mostly nighttime) temperatures. Mean maximum (mostly daytime) temperatures display little or no warming. In the USA and the USSR (no access to data in China) similar characteristics are also reflected in the changes of extreme seasonal temperatures, e.g., increase of extreme minimum temperatures and little or no change in extreme maximum temperatures. The continuation of increasing minimum temperatures and little overall change of the maximum leads to a decrease of the mean (and extreme) temperature range, an important measure of climate variability. The cause(s) of the asymmetric diurnal changes are uncertain, but there is some evidence to suggest that changes in cloud cover play a direct role (where increases in cloudiness result in reduced maximum and higher minimum temperatures). Regardless of the exact cause(s), these results imply that either: (1) climate model projections considering the expected change in the diurnal temperature range with increased levels of the greenhouse gases are underestimating (overestimating) the rise of the daily minimum (maximum) relative to the maximum (minimum), or (2) the observed warming in a considerable portion of the Northern Hemisphere landmass is significantly affected by factors unrelated to an enhanced anthropogenically-induced greenhouse effect.“
Here is the automatic translation:
“Analysis of the year-month average of the maximum and minimum surface thermometric record has now been updated and expanded to include three major countries in the Northern Hemisphere (the contiguous United States, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China). They point out that most of the warming that has occurred in these regions over the past four decades is due to an increase in mean minimum temperatures (mostly at night). The mean maximum temperatures (mostly during the day) show little or no warming. In the USA and USSR (no access to data in China), similar features are also reflected in the changes in extreme seasonal temperatures, e.g. B. Increase in extreme minimum temperatures and little or no change in extreme maximum temperatures.
The cause(s) of the asymmetric diurnal changes is uncertain. However, there is evidence that changes in cloud cover play a direct role (with increases in haze leading to reductions in maximum and higher minimum temperatures). Regardless of the exact cause(s), these results imply the following: (1) climate model projections, taking into account the expected change in the daily temperature range with increased levels of greenhouse gases, underestimate (overestimate) the increase in the daily minimum (maximum) relative to the maximum (minimum) or (2) the observed warming in a significant portion of the Northern Hemisphere landmass is significantly influenced by factors unrelated to an enhanced anthropogenically induced greenhouse effect.”
(emphasis by the author)
This article expressly criticizes the overinterpretation of human influence on the climate. This article actually belongs to one of categories 6 or 7, in which human influence on the climate is largely rejected or minimized.
This work is not the only one whose attribution is obviously wrong.
My samples are of course based on my intuition and depend on the title of the individual work. This is by no means a truly random sample.
The fact that I can find what I'm looking for here so quickly gives rise to the serious suspicion that a large part of the classification of the studies by Cook et al. is questionable.
Other incorrectly assigned items include:
| Article | by Cook et al. incorrectly assigned to category | belongs in category | comment |
|
Thomas R. Karl, George Kukla et al.: Global Warming – Evidence For Asymmetric Diurnal Temperature-change. In: Geophysical Research Letters. 1991 |
2 | 6 or 7 | Clearly negative or minimizing statement about humans' anthropogenic contribution to climate change. |
| Robert A. Monserud, Nadja M. Tchebakova & Rik Leemans: Global vegetation change predicted by the modified Budyko model. In: Climatic Change 25, 59–83(1993) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01094084 | 2 | 4 | No clear statement about the anthropogenic share |
| Alistair Dawson: Control of the annual cycle in birds: endocrine
constraints and plasticity in response to ecological variability. Royal Society Publishing. 28.11.2007. Vol. 363, Issue 1497 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.0004 |
2 | 4 | Mention of anthropogenic influences on the habitat of birds. No connection to the climate. |
| William J. Gutowski ; George F. McMahon et al.: Effects of Global Warming on Hurricane‐Induced Flooding. In: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management / Volume 120 Issue 2 – March 1994. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1994)120:2(176) | 2 | 4 | Climate change is mentioned, but anthropogenic effects are not, not even implicitly. |
| YoichiKaya.: Japanese strategy for mitigating global warming. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(96)00239-7 | 2 | 4 | No clear statement about the anthropogenic share |
| Thomas Frei,Ewald Gassner: Climate change and its impact on birch
pollen quantities and the start of the pollen season an example from
Switzerland for the period 1969–2006. International Journal of
Biometeorology. 15.05.2008. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00484-008-0159-2 |
2 | 4 | Mention of global warming but no mention of any human contribution to it. |
| DaviddeMontigny, WeerapongKritpiphat, DonGelowitz, Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul: Simultaneous production of electricity, steam, and CO2 from small gas-fired cogeneration plants for enhanced oil recovery. In: Energy Conversion and Management. Volume 38, Supplement, 1997, Pages S223-S228. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890496002737?via%3Dihub | 2 | 3 | Only implicit mention of the anthropogenic part. |
| K.E. McConnell: Nonmarket Valuation and the Estimation of Damages from Global Warming. In: Climatic Change 37, 121–139(1997) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005368403527 | 2 | 3 | Anthropogenic proportion is mentioned, but no agreement is given on the predominant proportion. A financial study with only marginal reference to climate |
| Hengchun Ye John R. Mather: Polar snow cover changes and global warming. in: Int. Journal of Climatology. 04.12.1998 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199702)17:2%3C155::AID-JOC111%3E3.0.CO;2-6 | 2 | 4 | Anthropogenic effect is not mentioned. |
| Olga V. Pilifosova, Irina B. Eserkepova & Svetlana A. Dolgih : Regional climate change scenarios under global warming in Kazakhstan. In: Climatic Change volume 36, pages 23–40 (1997). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005368404482 | 2 | 4/3 | Anthropogenic effect is not mentioned. Only increasing CO2 concentrations are discussed. This is not necessarily predominantly man-made. |
| Martin Beniston: Variations of snow depth and duration in the swiss alps over the last 50 years: links to changes in large-scale climatic forcings. In: Climatic Change volume 36, pages281–300(1997). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005310214361 | 2 | 3/4 | Mention of the anthropogenic part, but no statement about the amount. |
| Hany Hassan ; Keisuke Hanaki ; Tomonori Matsuo: A modeling approach to simulate impact of climate change in lake water quality: phytoplankton growth rate assessment. In: Water Sci Technol (1998) 37 (2): 177-185. https://iwaponline.com/wst/article/37/2/177/7513/A-modeling-approach-to-simulate-impact-of-climate | 2 | 3/4 | Only implicit mention of the anthropogenic part. |
| R. S. J. Tol & P. Vellinga : Climate Change, the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect and the Influence of the Sun: A Statistical Analysis. In: Theoretical and Applied Climatology volume 61, pages 1–7(1998) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs007040050046 | 2 | 3 | Only implicit mention of the anthropogenic part. |
| Constanza M. Montealegre Chris Van Kessel Jürg M. Blumenthal Hor‐Gil Hur Ueli A. Hartwig Michael J. Sadowsky: Elevated atmospheric CO2 alters microbial population structure in a pasture ecosystem. In: Global Change Biology. 24.12.2001 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00326.x | 2 | 4 | Mention of climate change and greenhouse gases but no mention of the anthropogenic contribution to the greenhouse effect. |
| Andrei P. Kirilenko, Nickolay V. Belotelov, Boris G. Bogatyrev:
Global model of vegetation migration: incorporation of climatic
variability.In: Ecological Modelling, Volume 132, Issues 1–2, 30 July
2000, Pages 125-133 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380000003100?via%3Dihub |
2 | 4 | Mention of climate change and greenhouse gases but no mention of the anthropogenic contribution to the greenhouse effect. |
| H. Visser, R. J. M. Folkert, J. Hoekstra & J. J. de Wolff: Identifying Key Sources of Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections. In: Climatic Change volume 45, pages 421–457(2000) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005516020996 | 2 | 3 | Only implicit mention of the anthropogenic part. |
| K. R. N. Anthony, D. I. Kline, G. Diaz-Pulido, S. Dove, and O.
Hoegh-Guldberg: Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity
loss in coral reef builders. PNAS November 11, 2008 105 (45)
17442-17446. https://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442 |
2 | 3 or 4 | Mention of anthropogenic CO2 as the origin of ocean acidification. Mention of the IPCC. No mention of humans as the cause of global warming. |
For about every fifth paper (sample size = 98 publications) one has to certify that the paper is incorrectly assigned to category 2. Are these unfortunate isolated cases? I do not believe that! The fact that I came across these articles right at the beginning of the list of over 900 publications makes me suspicious.
Overall, you get the impression that the summaries have not been read completely in terms of content. If so, this would be an intentionally incorrect assignment. I confronted John Cook about the abnormalities in his work on December 14, 2019 using a letter form on his homepage “skepticalscience.com” and by email on December 28, 2019. I have a transfer confirmation and an automatic read confirmation from December 29, 2019, but no response. If there is another message here, I will pass it on later.
Here ( https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=+&c=&e=2&yf=&yt= ) is a page from the Cook et al. project that lists the Category 2 articles examined along with the summaries linked. Do your own research!
Anomalies in the Cook study are already known
While researching this topic, I noticed that others had noticed the ominous results of the Cook study before me, even if the criticism was not formulated in quite as much detail (see, for example: Bernd Steinbrink: Abused science and silent mail. In : Axis of Good from July 27, 2019. https://www.achgut.com/artikel/verkehrste_forschung_und_stille_post )
Authors among climate scientists themselves also say that they are very surprised at the classification of their publications as clearly in favor of AGW, when they take a much more critical position:
Quotes from this:
Dr. Idso: “It would be wrong to claim that our article is an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
[…]
Scafetta: “My publications show that the IPCC view is wrong because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was caused by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely to be 1.5°C or lower, and 21st century projections need to be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or greater. The sun contributed (more or less) as much to this as anthropogenic forces.”
[…]
Scafetta: “Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me always claimed that the data would roughly indicate a natural anthropogenic contribution of at most 50-50.
What is currently being observed is complete dishonesty on the part of IPCC proponents. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory advocated by the IPCC is wrong because it is based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO, etc.), and honestly to acknowledge that the truth as it emerges is closer to what has been claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005. These people are trying to get approval.”
(Automatic translation from English, See: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html )
Here, scientists apparently take a completely different view than Cook et al. has claimed about them or their publications.
There is a statement from Cook and colleagues about critics. However, it only attempts to devalue the critics. Like a prayer wheel, the reliability of Cook's study has been repeatedly assured. However, I did not find any contentious discussion, for example with the lack of mention of the only 0.54% who agree with the IPCC consensus. I also find the commentary on the topic of incorrect assignment of specialist papers to be very poor, given my results of apparently frequent incorrect assignments.
Critics of the work are also immediately defamed as deniers of consensus. This is a distortion of the facts!
(see https://skepticalscience.com/arg_97-Percent-Konsens-belastbares-Ergebnis.htm )
Advertising as a scientific contribution to the topic of climate change?
But Cook et al. also show sporting ambition in the general selection of studies. There is also a text that looks like advertising for a company:
Manuel Glauser, Peter Müller: Eco-Efficiency: A Prerequisite for Future Success. In: CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry 51(5):201-206. May 1997
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233679627_Eco-Efficiency_A_Prerequisite_for_Future_Success
Translation of the introductory summary of the work:
“Eco-efficiency – the optimal use of materials, energy, personnel and capital to bring innovative products to market – is considered a prerequisite for future business success at Roche. Group-wide activities to increase eco-efficiency focus on manufacturing processes rather than product design because, unlike raw materials, the chemical composition and structure of Roche pharmaceutical products is determined by the desired therapeutic effect. Three examples of eco-efficient processes currently in operation at Roche are described. They cover main areas to further improve environmental sustainability and economic benefits: reduced material intensity and waste disposal, energy recovery, minimization of water consumption. Furthermore, four different indicators currently used at Roche to measure environmental performance and eco-efficiency are presented: the Roche Environmental Impact Indicator (REIF), the Roche Energy Rate (RER), the Roche Contribution to Man-Made Global Warming ( C02 equivalents) and the eco-efficiency rate (EER). These key indicators serve as a basis for identifying weaknesses and strengths, making improvement decisions, setting environmental goals and providing management information.”
It is well known that corporations adapt their company and product advertising to the spirit of the times. However, there is no evidence of a scientific discussion of the topic of “climate” here.
Fanatical Science Believers: The Self-Proclaimed Skeptics
It is not surprising that numerous errors occur when assigning items. The work on John Cook's article was partly carried out by scientific laypeople from the environment of the “Skeptical Science” website. And if you read through some of the texts and dialogues on the site, you are reminded a little of the self-proclaimed “skeptics”.
Bärbel Winkler , a German co-author of the publication, according to her own information on Facebook ( https://www.facebook.com/Baerbel.WF apparently works as a climate activist and as a translator for the “Skeptical Science” page, ). In her YouTube videos she uses exactly the same terms that the dogmatic editor and supporter of the skeptic scene Andol uses in Wikipedia . The terms are the “5 Characteristics of Science Denial”. Please refer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhats9Cbr0
According to his own Wikipedia page, Andol classifies himself as a skeptic. He added the German-language version of the Grafk to Wikipedia (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=185540019&oldid=185538712&title=Wissenschaftsgehenung )
The use of the defamatory term “conspiracy theory” is particularly typical among skeptics. “Conspiracy theory” here actually means a nonsense or bungling. By the way, this graphic is said to have originated on the Skeptical Science site, according to file information. ( https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? diff=185540019&oldid=185538712&title=Wissenschaftsgehenung#/media/Quelle:5_Characteristics_of_Science_Denial-de.png )
It seems that representatives of the skeptics are supported by “Skeptical Science” whether willingly or unintentionally, for example by providing propaganda material.
By the way, the Wikipedia author Andol is far ahead of the author Hg6996 with 37.1%
Most of the text on John Cook's personal article was added to the German-language Wikipedia (see: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/de.wikipedia/John_Cook_(Wissenschaftler)?uselang=de , as of December 28, 2019).
I have already mentioned this skeptic movement in detail in my documentary “Censorship, the organized manipulation of Wikipedia and other media” ( https://youtu.be/tef7bgwInjY ). This group is up to mischief on the German-language Wikipedia, among other places, and edits numerous articles there. Skeptics also run an anonymous Internet character assassination pillory called “Psiram.com”. The zeal of this group is directed against anyone who represents an attitude that deviates from the mainstream, especially in the areas of medicine and natural sciences. Essentially everyone agrees. There are hardly any differing opinions among the skeptics. These self-proclaimed skeptics are dogmatists and fanatical science-believing atheists who strictly reject religion. If the term “Scientology” didn’t already have other meanings, then it would be exactly the right expression for this group. Skeptics are also often among the so-called Antifa “Anti-Germans” who are monitored by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (see: https://www.verfassungsschutz.niedersachsen.de/extremismus/linksextremismus/antideutsche_antinationale/54194.html ).
The anti-Germans are also represented in all “left” parties in German-speaking countries. Both “Alliance90/The Greens”, “The Left”, “The Party” and the SPD have members who can be assigned to this anti-constitutional group. At the SPD, especially within the youth organizations.
The attempt at objectivity is rarely, if ever, found in this anti-German group and people from this circle are regularly aggressive or even violent.
Overwhelming consensus
So what remains at the end of the alleged 97 percent consensus? There is a clear consensus, but unfortunately a very different one than Cook and his friends would have wanted.
The summary by Cook et al. honestly should have been:
of agreement with the thesis that humans are largely responsible for climate change In 99.46% of all scientific papers there is no evidence . Many consider the human share to be smaller or do not make a clear statement about it. The vast majority of more than 66% make no statement on this question. Only 32.62% of all scientific papers speak of a more or less large human contribution to climate change. A small number even clearly reject a predominant or at least significant human contribution to climate change.
Only 0.54% of all publications claim that humans play a predominant role in climate change.
In addition, the study's database is flawed; numerous publications are classified into incorrect categories, as a sample showed. If we examine it again, this could shift the determined proportions of publications significantly in favor of those who reject the majority of people's involvement in climate change.
Based on this data, we can ask a much deeper question:
How is it possible for the other seven known studies on the alleged climate consensus to achieve approval ratings of up to 99%? With 11,944 publications examined, the Cook study already covers a fairly large amount of scientific work and therefore also statements on climate change. If we find only a negligibly small proportion of agreement with the IPCC's alleged climate consensus, then on what data basis do the other studies arrive at 99%? There is a serious initial suspicion that there may be something wrong with these studies too. “Further research has to be done.”
Manipulation of public opinion
But the question is: Why is a study on majority thinking among scientists published at all?
We are all social creatures and can almost sense the majority opinion of the group and usually even adapt our opinion to the majority opinion, even if it contradicts our actual beliefs and experiences. The psychologist Solomon Asch found this out in 1955 and 1956 through his conformity experiments.
Many viewers will certainly conclude that a widely established opinion held by scientists is more likely to be correct, or more correct overall, than one expressed only by individuals. But that is utter nonsense.
The majority of scientists can also be wrong. This has happened quite regularly. All that is needed is conclusive proof of the opposite and the majority opinion is invalid.
There are numerous classic examples of this. I would only like to mention the “phlogiston” theory or “N-rays”, which many found plausible, but which turned out to be wrong.
Conversely, new ideas have a very difficult time gaining traction in the scientific community because of influential dogmatists. For example Alfred Wegener, who made continental drift known in 1915. Only after he and his critics died did continental drift become accepted scientific common knowledge.
From a scientific approach, wanting to determine a majority opinion scientifically makes no deeper sense. What did Cook et al. to reach?
Cook et al. himself:
“An accurate assessment of the level of scientific consensus is an essential element for public support for climate policy (Ding et al. 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance of climate change (CC) (Lewandowsky et al. 2012).”
(Translation from English)
My conclusion is clear: this is about manipulating public opinion. And the author indirectly admits this too! The question that arises here is whether the author conducted research with an open mind or whether an intended result was certain from the outset.
In the overall view after critically reviewing the work, I come to the compelling conclusion that one cannot assume that John Cook's approach is open-ended and objective.
Cook cites his own study in his own booklet, “ Climate Consensus Handbook ” ( https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Consensus_Handbook_German_A4.pdf ) as follows:
Here the actual result of the study is completely distorted. The entire handbook aims to create a supposed consensus among scientists. However, according to the raw data from the study, this consensus does not exist. We have to assume that John Cook himself knows his own data very well and must know that his study does not even come close to producing this result. Therefore, I consider this to be a deliberate deception of readers by a scientist. A lie to influence public opinion. Science has an obligation to be truthful. Doesn't Mr. Cook realize that?
Heated debate on the heated climate – conclusion
This is no longer surprising given this topic. With the discussion about the global climate, we are experiencing an unprecedented politically heated atmosphere. We have at least two conflicting camps trying by all means to convince the masses of viewers of their respective points of view.
On the one hand, we see that a lobby around the figurehead Greta Thunberg is trying to make her position palatable to the population. On the other hand, it is proven that large energy suppliers, among others, are fighting for their profits. Please don't think that energy suppliers are all about money. Greta Thunberg didn't become famous by accident. It was “discovered” by Ingmar Rentzhog. Rentshog, who founded a "financial market communications office" in 2004 and ran it for years, is a member of former US Vice President Al Gore's "Climate Reality" project and a board member of a Swedish "sustainable development" think tank (source: Greta Thunberg commercially exploited - Activist as an advertising figure. In taz. February 10, 2019. https://taz.de/Greta-Thunberg-werbe-ausgenutzt/!5571776/ )
This unfortunate girl is being used for the purposes of Al Gore's eco-finance empire. It's all about the cheap money. Please do not believe that those involved at the end of the recycling chain primarily want to save the world. Just find out the inconvenient truth of Al Gore's finances and how he makes profits:
Quote:
“[Soros and Al Gore], the two self-confessed do-gooders, both invest in CO2 certificates and gamble on the climate markets. Gore is co-founder of the asset manager Generation Investment Management, which raised five billion dollars with one fund alone. He not only invests in wind turbines, solar cells and CO2 certificates, but also in everyday companies such as Nestlé or the automotive supplier Johnson Controls, which are supposed to operate in a particularly sustainable manner. A common procedure for funds with a green label.”
What is increasingly depressing here is the appropriation of science by politics, interest groups and big finance. I repeat: science has an obligation to be truthful! I know from painful experience that Cook and his colleagues are not the only ones who have a very flexible approach to the truth.
Unfortunately, this questionable handling of raw data that we see here is not at all rare in the field of so-called “climate science”. I can only advise you: be vigilant and think for yourself! Don't believe everything that is written. Scientists are also very human and influences such as proselytizing, striving for recognition and money sometimes lead to very strange “scientific” results.
Text: Markus Fiedler
Many thanks to Prof. Hans-Jürgen Bandelt (Hamburg) for proofreading. Many of his suggestions and tips have been incorporated into this text.
Corrections:
The following papers were incorrectly assigned by me in the list of scientific papers incorrectly assigned by Cook:
- John Woods, Wolfgang Barkmann: The plankton multiplier—positive feedback in the greenhouse. In: Journal of Plankton Research , Volume 15, Issue 9, 1993, Pages 1053-1074, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/15.9.1053
These works have been deleted.
The following work appeared twice in the data set:
- Hengchun Ye, John r. Mather: Polar snow cover changes and global warming. In: Int. Journal of Climatology. 1997.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199702)17:2%3C155::AID-JOC111%3E3.0.CO;2-6 - DaviddeMontigny, WeerapongKritpiphat, DonGelowitz, Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul: Simultaneous production of electricity, steam, and CO2 from small gas-fired cogeneration plants for enhanced oil recovery. In: Energy Conversion and Management. Volume 38, Supplement, 1997, Pages S223-S228. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890496002737?via%3Dihub
The following works were added to the data set:
- Thomas Frei, Ewald Gassner: Climate change and its impact on birch pollen quantities and the start of the pollen season an example from Switzerland for the period 1969–2006. International Journal of Biometeorology. May 15, 2008. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00484-008-0159-2 Mention of global warming but no mention of human contribution to it. Category 4
- Alistair Dawson: Control of the annual cycle in birds: endocrine constraints and plasticity in response to ecological variability. Royal Society Publishing. November 28, 2007. Vol. 363, Issue 1497 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.0004 Mention of anthropogenic influences on bird habitat. No connection to the climate. Category 4
- KRN Anthony, DI Kline, G. Diaz-Pulido, S. Dove, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg: Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. PNAS November 11, 2008 105 (45) 17442-17446. https://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442 Mention of anthropogenic CO2 as the origin of ocean acidification. Mention of the IPCC. No mention of humans as the cause of global warming. Category 3 or 4
My sample size is currently 98 papers in category 2. Based on this sample, I arrive at the corrected value that approximately one in five abstracts of a scientific paper by Cook et al. was incorrectly assigned.
Sources:
- Cook et al.: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. In: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS 8 (2013). https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf oder https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
- Cook et al.: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Rohdaten. https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt Alternativer Download: https://skepticalscience.com/docs/TCP-WebArchive20210315-erl460291datafile.txt
Raw data on work:
TCP-WebArchive20210315-erl460291datafile.txt
Files I created from the original raw data from Cook et al.:
