Any serious reader of the Cook paper knows that the category 6 and 7 papers, which comprise 95% of the 4,000 papers expressing an opinion, are silent about the amount of warming contributed by human activities. Dana Nuccitelli, one of the authors, admits this on the SkepticalScience website. Therefore, the most one can reasonably infer is that 95% would endorse the proposition that human activities are causing some warming, a trivial finding.
AGW is defined in the Introduction as the proposition that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW”. That was their research question. Its in the paper. Their original endorsement classification scheme would have answered it very nicely, if they had used it in their results. Just tell us how many Category 1 endorsing papers you found, please. There was no excuse for collapsing the categories and hiding the 2%. At the very least, the authors should have given the combination special definition or explanation. Otherwise, a casual reader will get the impression that AGW in “Endorse AGW” retains the same definition from the Introduction.
No, no matter how you look at it, Cook et al give a very dishonest presentation of their results, and they themselves continue to misrepresent their results elsewhere and celebrate their contribution to the propaganda effort.
But why belabor this if I admit that most scientists probably believe that human activities are causing most of the global warming?
- The extent of the consensus is nevertheless exaggerated.
- The mendacity of establishment researchers must be exposed. Cook et al, unfortunately, are not uncommon. And the fact that such papers get published implicates the entire community.