The descent into utter nuttery continues at WUWT.
Anthony has probably spent a heap of time copying an image of The Consensus Project, trying to argue that an opinion survey of members of the American Meteorological Society can be equated with a survey of scientific literature by Cook et al. And this after goodness knows how many WUWT protests that "opinions don't count". (Anthony's probably been working on this article for a while because the paper came out a little while back.)
Anthony Watts hasn't even read the abstract of the Cook13 97% consensus paper
What is really weird is that Anthony Watts hasn't even read Cook13, the paper that he's made umpteen protests about. How do I know that? Simple. This is what Anthony has written - at least four times. And he's wrong each of those times:
You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².And again:
...The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts.
Had Cook actually done an honest survey, we’d have the opinions of the authors about their papers, not the opinions of the SkS pal review squad in place of those opinions.
Anthony Watts has always had a tendency to leap first look later. In the case of Cook13, Anthony has leapt about twenty times or more and looked not once. It looks as if he "read the headlines" and not the paper.
Although he has no excuse for not reading the paper itself because it's open access, Anthony wouldn't even have had to read the whole paper to know that he was wrong. He could have just read the abstract - from Cook13:
. ..In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.If Anthony Watts had bothered to glance at the full paper he would have seen (my bold italics):
To complement the abstract analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team. Details of the survey text are provided in the supplementary informationIn Anthony's eagerness to embrace the opinions of meteorologists, particularly those who've never studied climate or done any research on climate, he shows once again that he is:
- is a stubby short of a six pack
- has a few roos loose in the top paddock
- is thick as a brick...
You get the idea.
Acceptance of AGW increases with increased knowledge
Anthony is delighted that he's found a paper showing that there are quite a few meteorologists who don't do any scientific research and who don't think that humans are affecting the climate to any great extent. (AFAIK in the USA, even a television weather announcer can call themselves a "meteorologist", and they are likely to have had some post-secondary education in the science of weather at some stage. AMS members these days would probably mostly have at least a bachelor degree in science. Maybe a reader from the USA can shed some light on the situation.)
Most of the AMS members who have done research say they know that climate change is real and that humans are causing it. But that latter finding just supports Anthony's conspiracy theory. He's a nutter of the 'climate science is a hoax' variety - and getting more entrenched as time goes by. Anthony twists deeper knowledge of climate science into "fudging results" to suit some supposed funding body objective. Why any government or funding body would want to fabricate such a problem is answered by the "new world order" conspiracy theory, which merges with the anti-semitic "evil banker" conspiracy theory and the "fiat money/someone stole all the gold in Fort Knox" conspiracy theory.
It's a tangled web of paranoid conspiracy theories in climate science denier land.
WUWT is "unreliable" - changing articles and censoring comments
As the thread grows, Anthony gets increasingly stroppy with anyone who points out where he went wrong. Funny thing is that when people do point out in the comments that the opinions of scientists on their own work was obtained, Anthony backtracks and edits his original article changing this (archived here):
You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting the authors of the papers rate their own work. The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters’ beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts.To this where he added the bolded italics sentence (archived here):
You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts.
Aha - so he's now tentatively admitting that authors were contacted - but he's not properly correcting his article or comments.
From the WUWT commentsIt didn't take long before someone brought up another "opinion poll" - the fraudulent "petition" known as the Oregon Petition. . dbstealey says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:11 am
As I’ve often said, you couldn’t get 97% of Italians to agree the Pope is Catholic.
Anyone who believes that 97% of scientists think human activity is the cause of global warming appears to be ignorant of the OISM Petition, in which more than 30,000 American scientists co-signed a statement saying that more CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
There is nothing comparable from the climate alarmist crowd, whose numbers are much smaller than generally assumed.
itooktheredpill is a fake sceptic who didn't bother reading Cook13 either, not even the abstract, and says, quoting Anthony Watt's fib:
November 20, 2013 at 11:14 am
You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting the authors of the papers rate their own work. The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters’ beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts.Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.
Cook effectively silenced the authors’ beliefs by replacing them with his SkS raters’ beliefs.
Cook can’t handle the truth.
Anthony wouldn't brook any facts in the comments. He got very irate when Dumb Scientist asked some pertinent questions. Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
Anthony Watts: The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey … We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots … Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers … a lie of omission … they’d been lied to by John Cook et al². … we’ll be fighting this lie for years … blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.==================================
Isn’t a survey of opinions different from a survey of scientific abstracts? If so, how can an opinion survey show that a survey of scientific abstracts is a “lie”?
Note that 78% of meteorologists who publish mostly on climate agree that the warming is mostly human-caused. Only 5% of all meteorologists claim that the warming is mostly natural, and only 4% claim that the warming isn’t happening.
If we can agree about these facts, that’s great news!
True to form Anthony demonstrates bullying and cowardice. First off, Anthony doesn't give any real sceptic the courtesy of using his screen name. He figures 'naming and shaming' people will intimidate them and scare them away. (After all, what self-respecting person would admit to visiting a site like WUWT!). It's not as if he's a dinky di fake sceptic like itooktheredpill above.
REPLY: Bryan, This response suggests you are simply concern trolling. Had Cook actually done an honest survey, we’d have the opinions of the authors about their papers, not the opinions of the SkS pal review squad in place of those opinions.Concern trolling? The questions and statements were matter of fact, on point and courteously expressed. Anthony must really be feeling under the hammer, mustn't he.
For more shenanigans related to SkS, you might look up the sort of pea and thimble switcheroos (they didn’t survey skeptical blogs) and statistical techninques (populations of N=0 are allowed, add your own interpretation) employed by the gang that couldn’t shoot straight when it came to their published opinions on skeptics and their supposed belief in “faking the moon landing”. What you have here with SkS is an organized propaganda team. They aren’t interested in science.
Anthony couldn't cope with much more from normal people. Heck. That's not what WUWT is all about. WUWT is for people who don't read abstracts. People who don't check up on Anthony's fibs. People who embrace wacky conspiracy theories and all the utter nutter fake sceptics. There is no room for reason, fact-checking or science on WUWT.
Since bullying didn't work, Anthony takes the coward's way out. Anthony got out his censorship keyboard and went haywire any time he saw a comment that pointed out where he got it wrong. For example. when Dumb Scientist suggested that WUWT do its own survey, Anthony "snipped" it. At least he left the follow up comment though not without another whine:
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm
[snip - not interested in your characterization of me - Anthony]
Just a few days ago, dbstealey and Ferdinand Engelbeen drew my attention to the WUWT sidebar which criticizes SkS for deleting user comments and noted that this means SkS is “dishonest”.
So it’s disappointing that my comment was snipped, but even more disappointing that Anthony claims it was because of a “characterization” after he accused John Cook and other SkS authors of dishonesty.
I still think it’s possible that Anthony has the integrity to not snip this comment, so I’ll repeat my challenge that got snipped earlier: “I’d be very interested to see WUWT read through 10,000 scientific abstracts and rate them. You could show the world how to do a proper survey… right?”
REPLY: Oh please. Bryan for the record, I don’t give a rats ass about what you think about comment policy (see here). You put words in my mouth in the last comment, I snipped it because of that. Get over yourself. Why don’t you get your peers at JPL to do it, if it is so important to you? After all, you’ve got millions of dollars of government money at your disposal there and we have next to nothing.
The whole consensus chasing is a waste of time in my opinion, Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of the AGW issue- Anthony
For a "waste of time" Anthony has sure spent a lot of time and written an awful lot of articles in protest :) And he complains he can't be bothered surveying the literature because he wouldn't get paid for it! I guess the Heartland Institute don't see it in their best interest to have Cook13 confirmed yet again. John Cook and his team looked at more than 10,000 abstracts in their own time without being paid a penny. But Anthony Watts isn't interested in doing it because, as he knows, he'd end up with the same result as Cook13.
There are a number of people who've noticed that although the uninformed (non-research) meteorologists are less likely to attribute climate change to mostly human activities, only 5% have said that "it's natural".
I'm on the road so won't write any more on this right now, but I see there is lots more fun to be had with articles put up at WUWT in the past few hours. So I'll be back soon.
Meanwhile, you can read the various WUWT archives on this zany article here in order: First, second, third, fourth. The comments are a mix of the rational through to the utter nutters. Anthony Watts is leaning towards the utter nutter end of the spectrum but there are quite a few who surpass him.
Neil Stenhouse et al (2013), Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2013 ; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1