---

BANNED. /r/science silences scientific dissent http://i.imgur.com/dgseSJH.jpg

The actual comment was removed: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4f6f6g/science_ama_series_we_just_published_a_study/d26a9cv

However I've included the text below:

---

/u/SkepticScience You've still not defended yourself against those who's papers you classified as endorsing AWG when in fact they were not...

You've still not defended yourself against the fact that Cook et al. (2013) packages 'Explicit endorsement without quantification' & ' Implicit endorsement' with "Human beings are the cause of Global Warming" when those concepts are NOT the same.

Cook et al. (2013) did not find that "over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

Quoting from the Abstract,

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. " http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=F2C83245B7696D5641B1436BFD695012.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl460291t4fn3

The first issue with “Cook et al. (2013) is “explicit endorsement with quantification” vs “explicit endorsement without quantification”

Within the Abstract section 2. Methodology, of “Cook et al. (2013), we can observe the paper broken down as follows:

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification.

(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification

(3) Implicit endorsement

(4a) No position

(4b) Uncertain

(5) Implicit rejection

(6) Explicit rejection without quantification

(7) Explicit rejection with quantification

“explicit endorsement with quantification” is representative of a paper that states that: "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming"—primary cause in usage meaning more than 50 percent.

This is the only category anyone claiming "X number of papers endorse Man Made Climate Change." should reference, because this is the only category where that statement is true.

“explicit endorsement without quantification” are papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether .001 percent or 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. The crux of "explicit endorsement without quantification" is that man has contributed SOME amount.

Then there is "Implicit endorsement", which "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause".

The important distinction here is that neither the “explicit endorsement without quantification” or the "Implicit endorsement" make the claim that Human beings are the primary cause. However the theory of AGW([Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming) is that human being ARE the PRIMARY cause.

However within his results he breaks down the summery of abstracts with AGW([Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming) position (%) as follows:

Endorse AGW 97.1%

Reject AGW 1.9%

Uncertain on AGW 1.0%

In formulating his result of "Endorse AGW", Cook lumps together "Implicit endorsement" & “explicit endorsement without quantification” with “explicit endorsement with quantification”. Thus lumping together papers which suggest that human contribute some portion, with those stating that we are the primary cause.

Further examination of Cooks data http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt shows the truth of the matter:

By his count, the number of articles classified into each category was:

Level 1 = 64

Level 2 = 922

Level 3 = 2910

Level 4 = 7970

Level 5 = 54

Level 6 = 15

Level 7 = 9

The 97% figure was the sum of levels 1-3. Assuming the count is correct—that 97% breaks down as:

Level 1: 1.6%

Level 2: 23%

Level 3: 72%

This shows only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Only Level 1 corresponds to "the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." Hence when John Cook attributed that view to 97% on the basis of his Cook et. al. (2013) he was misrepresenting 1.6% as 97%.

So no, Cook et. al. did not find that "over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

A study that is no more than a collection of ill-categorized data intertwined with word manipulation.

If this is what is considered to be 'scientific', then i'm sure I will enjoy these other 'studies'.