Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading
#1
Here is a great explanation on John Cook's absurd paper and why the 97% garbage is a statistical boogeyman.

De Staat Van Het Klimaat

May 17,2013

Marcel Crok

SELECTED EXCERPT:

So what’s all the fuzz about? Cook et al. selected around 12,000 scientific abstracts that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” published in the period 1991-2011. With a large group of volunteers they then rated the papers using 7 categories. Around 8000 of the abstracts (2/3) take no clear position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Of the remaining ~4000 abstracts more than 97% “endorse AGW” according to the paper. Only a tiny amount (78 papers) “reject AGW”. Hence they claim again that there is a consensus, that the debate is over and also that there is a gap between scientists and the public (see graph above). A much larger percentage of the scientists “endorses AGW” than the public at large.

Misleading
Now here comes the misleading part. If an abstract/paper “endorses AGW”, what would this mean for most people? Let’s look again at the tweet of Obama: “#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”. If this is what it means for the president of the US, it probably means the same for many citizens who heard the news in the media. However, can this be sustantiated by the survey results? In no way.

To the credit of the researchers they made all their results available in a searchable database. Their rating system is online as well. There are 7 levels of endorsement, going from quantified endorsement of AGW all the way down to a quantified rejection of AGW. Seems fair enough. But here is the issue. Only the first category can be regarded as a real or strong endorsement of AGW. Here is the description of category 1:

LINK

========================================================================================================
John Cook is doing a great job destroying himself with his statistically created bullshit paper.A perfect example of a non scientist thinking approach despite having university based science education in his back pocket.

I really wonder if this is a valid marker for mental illness?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
The following links are from websites that exposes the shoddy Cook paper in some detail:

I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-d...-it-means/

On the Consensus
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/pos...responses/

The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to...oportions/

The Collapsing ‘Consensus’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/th...consensus/
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/th...sus-herds/
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Not only is Cook's effort exposed as phoney

but this also shows the sloppy effort of supposed "peer review".
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#5
You mean PAL review?

Rolleyes

The Crook I mean COOK paper is stupid and easy to see why even by non scientists who have seen the obvious errors.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  13,950 Meaningless Search Results Sunsettommy 0 3,573 04-20-2013, 07:49 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  John Cook and the invisible GHE theory in 1979 Sunsettommy 1 4,327 12-22-2012, 08:17 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  The Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link Sunsettommy 0 2,958 09-13-2012, 06:19 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Recent survey shows majority consensus JohnWho 23 18,318 08-19-2009, 07:14 PM
Last Post: Mike Davis



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)