John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia came up with the oft-quoted number, based on an examination he conducted of scientific papers. Members of the media and others, who consider his methodology questionable, want to see his research and the papers he used to cook up his claim, but the university is suing to block access.
If he’s right and his methods are on the up-and-up, what’s he got to hide? Sounds like a case of eco-bullshit to me. Obama, and other alarmists like him, want to scare the benighted masses into going along with massive carbon-control schemes and other programs designed to cripple the use of fossil fuels, and crush our economy.
Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.
The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.
The UK Times reported that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”
“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, told the Times.
Bengtsson was one of the study’s authors and recently joined the camp of scientists skeptical of global warming.