Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[fskimospy]

There will be no substantive changes to improve CO2 emissions and things will only get worse. The repubs will not act because they have a religious view that man has no involvement in the problem, that this is all a natural occurrence beyond human control so why impede industry's desire to make a profit. If man isn't responsible why penalize industry.

The dems, OTH, are looking at window dressing with cap & trade. As if setting up a money making exchange, where brokers playing three card monte, will solve the problem. Yeah, setting up an exchange where insiders make huge money trading credits -- that's going to fix the problem.

I'm not seeing much to hang my hat on...


Brian

Do you think cap and trade regulations helped curb sulfur emissions and acid rain?

 

[Moonbeam]

There were several cases of non-peer reviewed "alarmist" studies being used in the IPCC report which were later proved completely wrong. Surely you know this? But, as always, I do enjoy your perspective.

I took your objection to be 'conflating the percentage of agreement of scientists who believe the globe in warming with the percentage who believe the warming is man made'.

I do not know the truth. I rely on the scientists to tell me. It looks to me as though man made global warming is real and I believe we should act to reverse the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think it should be a high priority effort. I do not detect in myself any need to think one way or the other. I believe my point of view is objective to the limits of my understanding. I would rather believe, if I had a choice, that global warming doesn't exist. If I had the power to force the world to devote resources to save the planet from global warming as I imagine we should, I would no do it and I would regrettably probably take extreme action against anybody who could actually destroy the world because he believed God wanted him to do it, if it were the only way to prevent such an action from taking place. Fortunately, I can see no way in which such circumstances would occur, but they are part of my perspective.

 

[Poptech]

The first question I would ask is if he didn't quit because they weren't spouting his propaganda. It seems that propaganda is propaganda to those who see the truth, and truth to those who have been propagandize do to believe in delusions of that kind.

IPCC again (Richard Tol)

In September 2013, I stepped down from the team that prepared the draft of the Summary for Policy Makers to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This attracted worldwide media attention in April 2014. Regrettably, the story of AR5 became the story of a man.

I have been involved with the IPCC since 1994, fulfilling a variety of roles in all three working groups. After the debacle of AR4 – where the Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors – I had criticized the IPCC for faulty quality control. Noblesse oblige – I am the 20th most-cited climate scholar in the world – so I volunteered for AR5.

The Irish government put my name forward only to withdraw its financial commitment when I was indeed elected. The necessary funding could have easily been freed up if the Irish delegation to the international climate negotiations and the IPCC would trim its luxurious travel arrangements.

As a Convening Lead Author of one of the chapters, I was automatically on the team to draft the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). AR5 is a literature review of 2,600 pages long. It assesses a large body of scholarly publication. In some places, the chapters are so condensed that there are a few words per article in the learned literature. The SPM then distills the key messages into 44 pages – but everyone knows that policy and media will only pick up a few sentences. This leads to a contest between chapters – my impact is worst, so I will get the headlines.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.

This message does not support the political agenda for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Later drafts put more and more emphasis on the reasons for concern about climate change... Raising the alarm about climate change has been tried before, many times in fact, but it has not had an appreciable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

I reckoned that putting my name on such a document would not be credible – my opinions are well-known – and I withdrew.
The SPM, drafted by the scholars of the IPCC, is rewritten by delegates of the governments of the world, in this case in a week-long session in Yokohama. Some of these delegates are scholars, others are not. The Irish delegate, for instance, thinks that unmitigated climate change would put us on a highway to hell, referring, I believe, to an AC/DC song rather than a learned paper.

Other delegations have a political agenda too. The international climate negotiations of 2013 in Warsaw concluded that poor countries might be entitled to compensation for the impacts of climate change. It stands to reason that the IPCC would be asked to assess the size of those impacts and hence the compensation package. This led to an undignified bidding war among delegations – my country is more vulnerable than yours – that descended into farce when landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise.

Many countries send a single person delegation. Some countries can afford to send many delegates. They work in shifts, exhausting the other delegations with endless discussions about trivia, so that all important decisions are made in the final night with only a few delegations left standing. The IPCC authors, who technically have the right to veto text that contradicts their chapter, suffer from tiredness too.

This shows. The SPM omits that better cultivars and improved irrigation increase crop yields. It shows the impact of sea level rise on the most vulnerable country, but does not mention the average. It emphasize the impacts of increased heat stress but downplays reduced cold stress. It warns about poverty traps, violent conflict and mass migration without much support in the literature. The media, of course, exaggerated further.

Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick. Others only see incompetence and conspiracy in climate research, and nepotism in climate policy. A polarized debate is not conducive to enlightened policy in an area as complex as climate change... The IPCC missed an opportunity to restore itself as a sober authority, accepted (perhaps only grudgingly) by most.

The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think. Academics who worry about climate change are more likely to publish about it, and more likely to get into the IPCC. Groups of like-minded people reinforce their beliefs. The environment agencies that comment on the draft IPCC report will not argue that their department is obsolete. The IPCC should therefore be taken out of the hands of the climate bureaucracy and transferred to the academic authorities.

 

[Poptech]

Feel free to offer a substantive rebuttal to the obvious holes in Tol's paper at your leisure.

I'm especially interested to hear your response to the methodological flaws.

There are neither holes nor methodological flaws and this is the third time you have made this baseless allegation. Try posting a working link to such a published comment.

 

[Poptech]

Man, eskimospy is kicking some ass in this thread. I don't have nearly the patience that he does for goofballs like Poptech and DSF.

Maybe you are reading another thread? So far he has dodged multiple questions posed to him and hand-waved away the rest of the arguments presented to him.

1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?

2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

 

[Poptech]

I took your objection to be 'conflating the percentage of agreement of scientists who believe the globe in warming with the percentage who believe the warming is man made'.

The percentage that believe any such thing has never been determined because all of the world's scientists were never polled.

You forgot two very important points:

1. How much of the contribution is anthropogenic?
2. How much of an impact will it have?

 

[Poptech]

There will be no substantive changes to improve CO2 emissions and things will only get worse.

What exactly will get worse?

 

[fskimospy]

There are neither holes nor methodological flaws and this is the third time you have made this baseless allegation. Try posting a working link to such a published comment.

One was present in a previous post. You can follow the guardian link to a link on the paper.

There are obvious, severe methodological flaws. He has never addressed them that I am aware of. By the way this is not the first time his papers have been exposed as being poorly written.

I would strongly suggest you take a deep breath and look at the evidence as opposed to what confirms what you want to believe.

 

[Moonbeam]

IPCC again (Richard Tol)

I know you will believe me when I tell you his argument sucks, the proof being that I said it did although all who agree with me have temporarily fallen asleep from exhaustion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Poptech, is this subject a hobby or do you have a background in this area?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

One was present in a previous post. You can follow the guardian link to a link on the paper.

There are obvious, severe methodological flaws. He has never addressed them that I am aware of. By the way this is not the first time his papers have been exposed as being poorly written.

I would strongly suggest you take a deep breath and look at the evidence as opposed to what confirms what you want to believe.

Please link so we have clarity on exactly what paper you're talking about.

 

[Poptech]

One was present in a previous post. You can follow the guardian link to a link on the paper.

There are obvious, severe methodological flaws. He has never addressed them that I am aware of. By the way this is not the first time his papers have been exposed as being poorly written.

Why is it so hard for you to properly link to what you are talking about? Where was this peer-reviewed?

Dr. Tol responds to everything that is published, even nonsense like that.

A new contribution to the consensus debate (Richard Tol)

Someone has posted a response to my comment on Cook's 97% consensus paper. The response has caused some hilarity, both among those who think that John Cook invented sliced bread and among those who understand what is going on.

The response is anonymous. Let's refer to its author as Frank Ackerman Jr, who does not work at Tufts University. Junior is unrelated to Frank Ackerman. They just have a name in common, and neither is affiliated to Tufts.

Junior's response focuses on the procedure I used to correct Cook's data. If we follow Cook's paper, then 6.7% of their data is wrong. (This may be an underestimate.) I applied a procedure to correct the erroneous data and found that the dissensus rate goes from 2% to 9%.

Junior takes issue with my procedure. The critique cuts no wood.

Junior's Equation (1) was used by Cook, but not by me. Until such day that Cook releases the survey protocol that shows that the post-hoc data correction was planned before the data were collected, there is no reason to add the term 0.005N4 to the denominator.

Equation (3) is wrong too. Junior notes I used
C=TF
where C is the 7x1 vector of corrected ratings, T is a 7x7 matrix and F is the 7x1 vector of final ratings, with
T=(1-e)I+eS
Junior did not reconstruct the T that I used. This is unfortunate as my T is online.

Junior posits another matrix: U = (f/e)T, where T is as above, e=6.7% is the error rate in Cook's final data and f=11.8%. Junior claims that this is error rate in Cook's raw data (which is 18.5% actually).

Junior then takes the matrix inverse to compute R=U^-1 F where R would be Cook's original ratings. Using this procedure, Junior finds a nonsensical R - certain elements are negative -and concludes that my procedure is nonsense.

That does not follow. If following my forward procedure, Junior would have corrected S rather than T (from which the new T would have followed). The correction is not a scalar multiplication. Alternatively, Junior could have solved F=UR for U (say, using a RAS procedure with T as a starting point) and computed C=UF=UUR.

Junior thus made an error and blamed it on me.

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, is this subject a hobby or do you have a background in this area?

I do freelance work in this area but my background is in computer science / information technology.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I do freelance work in this area my background is in computer science / information technology.

What does "freelance work" mean? Area of interest or something more than that?

 

[fskimospy]

Why is it so hard for you to properly link to what you are talking about? Where was this peer-reviewed?

Dr. Tol responds to everything that is published, even nonsense like that.

A new contribution to the consensus debate (Richard Tol)

Did you even bother to read the other paper? What Tol is saying is a pretty transparent attempt to cover his ass after being called out.

You don't even need to be a mathematician to see it, he chose to assume that 55% of 'no position' papers would have been classified as rejecting AGW.

You got taken in by a fraud.

 

[Moonbeam]

The important thing for a CBD to continue to live in an altered reality is that somebody else brighter and more sophisticated at the art of rationalization has an argument out there that can be referred to as defending the denial. Global warming isn't real because so in so said so and he is an expert in the field of global warming denial.

 

[fskimospy]

In case anyone wants to read more people shitting all over Tol's inept paper:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/06/...onymous-as.html?showComment=1401938718897&m=1

It's just embarrassing at this point. Maybe climate freelancers can help us out here though, haha.

 

[Poptech]

Did you even bother to read the other paper? What Tol is saying is a pretty transparent attempt to cover his ass after being called out.

Was that paper peer-reviewed paper?

What Dr. Tol is saying is pretty transparent.

"Junior thus made an error and blamed it on me."

 

[Poptech]

In case anyone wants to read more people shitting all over Tol's inept paper:

It's just embarrassing at this point. Maybe climate freelancers can help us out here though, haha.

So now you are using Google to desperately find a critique and resort to a blog where the author believes himself to be a bunny rabbit?

The only thing embarrassing is your inability to present a peer-reviewed rebuttal.

Why is this so hard?

 

[Poptech]

In case anyone wants to read more people shitting all over Tol's inept paper:

Let me educate you on how to properly shit all over a paper...

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Journal Coverage:

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)


Media Coverage:

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)


Organization Coverage:

Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)


Weblog Coverage:

Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

Just in case anyone wants to read more.

 

[Poptech]

What does "freelance work" mean? Area of interest or something more than that?

More than a hobby but I am not paid, as my work has been cited eight times in five peer-reviewed journals.

 

[fskimospy]

So now you are using Google to desperately find a critique and resort to a blog where the author believes himself to be a bunny rabbit?

The only thing embarrassing is your inability to present a peer-reviewed rebuttal.

Why is this so hard?

His findings are rebutted by a number of peer reviewed papers.

If you knew what you were talking about you would never have said that.

If you think people showing you easily how you're wrong is 'desperately using google', that probably points to how you ended up coming to where you're at.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me educate you on how to properly shit all over a paper...

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Journal Coverage:

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)


Media Coverage:

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)


Organization Coverage:

Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)


Weblog Coverage:

Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

Just in case anyone wants to read more.

This is awesome. please keep going. I think you don't even know why your copypasta is stupid.

 

[Poptech]

His findings are rebutted by a number of peer reviewed papers.

Name them.

 

[Poptech]

This is awesome. please keep going. I think you don't even know why your copypasta is stupid.

Please explain why shitting on the cartoonists paper is stupid.