Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them

We all knew that the paper was Cook-eyed because of the treatment of statistics. Now we see that his raw data are rubbish.

Watts Up With That?

UPDATE: More inconsistency:


When asked about the categorizations of Cook et al, – “It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming”

Guest essay by Andrew of Popular Technology

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature‘ searched the Web of Science for the phrases “global warming” and “global climate change” then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook…

View original post 1,277 more words

This entry was posted in Environment, Science. Bookmark the permalink.