A psychologist’s scathing review of John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ nonsensus paper

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Psychologist José Duarte writes: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. I only spent ten minutes with their database — there will be more such papers for those who search. I’m not willing to spend a lot of time with their data, for reasons I detail further down.

This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It…

View original 1,019 more words

Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution. Part IV

Originally posted on Climate Etc.:

by Judith Curry

Last October, I introduced this topic in Part I and followed up with Part II and Part III, which formed an early draft of an argument I was using in a paper entitled “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster.”  I’ve gotten the reviews back on my paper, this post is a draft of the revised version of that particular section.

View original 3,798 more words