Category: climate consensus studies
-
Nimble skepticism (Updated)
The Karl et al. study highlights something I’ve been thinking about lately. I don’t know if the Karl paper is important, good, or bad. It claims to debunk the slowdown in surface warming. Other papers will claim the opposite. This won’t be the end of it, but imagine that it was – imagine that we…
-
Correction / counting
Correction: In one of my posts on the Cook fraud, I listed 19 social science, survey, marketing, and opinion papers that were coded as “climate papers” endorsing of anthropogenic warming. I made a mistake listing this one: Vandenplas, P. E. 1998. “Reflections on the Past and Future of Fusion and Plasma Physics Research.” Plasma Physics…
-
The climate science consensus is 78 – 84 percent (Updated)
I think I’ve been negligent in not making the actual climate science consensus known to people. In one of my projects it occurred to me that no one has made the information readily available, at least not to my knowledge. I’ll save the details for the journal article, but I think a quick snapshot of…
-
Comment on Verheggen et al.; climate consensus research
Here’s my recent Comment on Verheggen et al. in Environmental Science & Technology. Their core argument in their Reply is that all the non-climate scientists who were invited to participate in this survey because of their climate-related papers – all the psychologists, sociologists, Marxists, economists, palladium experts, etc. – would deny having done any climate-related…
-
No results
A colleague perused the the Cook rater forums and sent me this example: “I got one last night, though, that I thought was funny – I rated it as “Explicit >50%”, because it *was* attributing all the warming to human GHG emissions. It just claimed there wouldn’t *be* much warming, asserting that the IPCC had…
-
The art of evasion
Here’s an update on the Cook 97% scam. They apparently have no answers. Cook and some of his crew had a chat event at Reddit. Last I checked, they never addressed any substantive issues in the report, even though various people asked them about it. They don’t argue against the fraud reports, the validity issues,…
-
Harms
Hi all. I’m working on a side project, and I ask for your help. Have you been harmed by others’ judgments or perceptions of you as a climate skeptic? Please send me your stories. Climate skeptic is broad and vague, but what matters here are others’ perceptions of you as questioning human-caused warming, or questioning…
-
Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. Let’s walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific…