Dire climate warnings not happening

[Doug1029]

the cook paper's 97% figure was derived from those abstracts that only expressed an opinion in the abstract. those were the papers that monckton was looking at, monckton used cook's own method, their own data, and their own categorization of papers.

Thank you for pointing out that defect in Monckton's summary. A paper that pre-supposes global warming is counted as support by Cook, but not by Monckton.

Would you classify this statement: "The range occupied by the armadillo has been increasing in recent years because of reduced snow cover" as supporting Cook's hypothesis? The author didn't say whether he accepted AGW or not; he just assumed it to be fact. Your argument assumes that this author does not accept AGW because he didn't explicitly say so; that assumption is not necessarily a valid one.

In fact, we could probably look up a sample of those authors and follow up with an email asking them. Want to do it? I'll bet they'd tell us. Then we'd have a solid estimate of what that number should be (and whether Cook or Monckton is closer to the truth). Let's start with a random sample of about 30 of Cook's authors. If we get a good response, we could expand it to say, 100. Want to write a paper for publication? I suggest co-authorship (We both have to approve it before sub,mitting it for publication.).

Doug

[Little Fish]

Thank you for pointing out Cook's defect in Monckton's summary.

fixed that for you.

"A paper that pre-supposes global warming is counted as support by Cook, but not by Monckton."

no,

1. a paper that expresses an opinion in support of man made global warming is counted by cook as support that man has caused most of the warming.

whereas:

2. a paper that expresses an opinion in support of man made global warming is NOT counted by monckton as support that man has caused most of the warming.

(1) is counted incorrectly.

(2) is counted correctly.

"Would you classify this statement: "The range occupied by the armadillo has been increasing in recent years because of reduced snow cover" as supporting Cook's hypothesis?

since cook and monckton are only counting papers that expressed an opinion regarding man made warming, your example would be discarded from the 12,000.

btw, no it doesn't support any hypothesis about the cause of warming.

"The author didn't say whether he accepted AGW or not"

yes, that's correct

"he just assumed it to be fact."

no, he didn't. your circular reasoning has tripped you up again.

he did not express any opinion about the cause of the warming (or rather lack of snow) in the information you gave.

"Your argument assumes that this author does not accept AGW because he didn't explicitly say so; that assumption is not necessarily a valid one."

again no, if he does not express an opinion then he is discarded by cook and monckton, neither of them count him one way or the other. do you get that the study looked at 12,000 papers and whittled it down to 4,000 that expressed an opinion? the others (with your example, went into the bin)

in science, "no evidence" is not "evidence", you really should read the papers before jumping in like this.

"In fact, we could probably look up a sample of those authors and follow up with an email asking them. Want to do it? I'll bet they'd tell us."

the cook study already did that, so no i don't want to do it.

"Then we'd have a solid estimate of what that number should be (and whether Cook or Monckton is closer to the truth)."

wel, clearly it is monckton that is closer to the truth since the opinions have been verified by the cook study, only 41 papers opinionated (with verification) that man is causing most of the warming.

so 41/4000 = 1%, or if you prefer 41/12,000 = 0.3%

either way, 1% or 0.3% is not 97%.

do you get it yet?

[Doug1029]

do you get it yet?

So you don't really want to know what the real numbers are?

Doug