Correction / counting
One listed Cook paper was mitigation, not endorsement; a welding paper was explicit endorsement. Fraudulent studies have no percentage left to recompute.
Read Article →Tag
#John Cook
8 posts
All sides
Exposing Cook’s fraud is not climate skepticism. AGW is not history’s biggest hoax. Fraud means willful lies about methods, not merely lower ECS estimates.
Read Article →The climate science consensus is 78 – 84 percent (Updated)
Qualified surveys of climate scientists put attribution consensus at 78-84%, not 97%. Cook-style abstract ratings are not surveys and should not set it.
Read Article →On fraud
Scientific fraud is deception, not only fake cells in a freezer. False titles the authors’ own spreadsheet refutes meet standard falsification tests.
Read Article →No results
Cook raters googled authors and mocked skeptics. Fraud plus an invalid method means there is no 97%--no number at all. Results require methods.
Read Article →The art of evasion
Cook’s team never answered the fraud case. They claimed blind, independent raters they did not use; without those methods, there are no results.
Read Article →Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
Cook et al. coded stove surveys, housing papers, and TV-news studies as AGW endorsement. The 97% figure is fraudulent and should be retracted.
Read Article →Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts.
Cook’s 97% paper counted stove surveys and psychology abstracts as climate endorsement. Activist raters cannot measure a scientific consensus.
Read Article →