Hi all. If you haven’t heard, Richard Tol got his paper criticizing the Cook et al consensus paper published. Cook et al (with a slightly different lineup, including Stephan Lewandowsky) have responded. The University of Queensland has endorsed their response. Their response contains at least one blatant lie.
Yes. I said lie. In their response, Cook et al explicitly state they:
classified abstracts of climate science papers based on the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is man-made (AGW, Categories 1–3), rejection or minimisation of AGW (Categories 5–7), or ‘no position’ on AGW (Category 4).
But as everybody knows, Categories 2 and 3 did not say anything about “the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is man-made.” Categories 2 and 3 said nothing about how much of recent global warming humans are responsible for. This is incredibly obvious given Category 2 was labeled in the paper, “(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification.”
Of the 3,896 they rated as “Endorse AGW,” they only rated 64 as endorsing the notion “most of the recent global warming is man-made.” The other 3,832 did not. John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and the rest all know this, but they still published a paper which claimed 3,896 abstracts were rated as saying “most of the recent global warming is man-made.” In other words, they lied.
The blatancy of that lie offended me enough I decided to do something. I decided to make a resource for people interested in the global warming consensus debate. My goal is to collect all the arguments about the consensus and present them in a single, centralized location that allows people to easily examine any argument (and its references).
I’ve begun doing so on my website. You can see what I’ve written so far here. I currently have one main page that’ll serve as an introduction and overview, plus links to four more pages which discuss individual topics. There’s a lot more to cover, but I think what’s posted already is rather damning and informative.
The aesthetics suck, and I don’t know how quickly I’ll work through things, but I think it could be useful for some people. And who knows? If John Cook and his associates keep annoying me as much as they did today, I might find the motivation to make this well-crafted.
June 7th Update: I’ve added a page covering one of the initial points of dispute, involving one of Richard Tol’s primary criticisms of the paper. Here’s a direct link to the new page. Also, over the next few days, I plan to add a simple navigation option so people can jump directly to specific articles.