The day after the famous Cook et al paper was published, I wrote a post saying:
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.
I have to say that Brandon’s effort to compare our Category 1 (explicit endorsement with quantification) with Categories 5–7 (all implicit + explicit minimizations and rejections) is really a gross distortion of reality. I think that’s the nicest way I can put it – I’ll refrain from saying what I really think of it in the interest of keeping the discussion here civil.
This is a fascinating remark to read in light of my last post, where I showed Nuccitelli wrote that for the consensus position:
‘humans are causing most of the warming’, #1 qualifies as an endorsement, while #5 through 7 are rejections.
It turns out my “apples to oranges” “gross distortion or reality” which shows the Cook et al results say “it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one” is exactly what Cook et al planned to publish… until they saw their results.
Does nobody really care they do this? I get in this world people can get away with planning to publish results until they see those results are embarrassing, but how do they get away with calling anyone who does publish those results dishonest?