But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.
The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
Much like the Michael Mann "I'll lie and keep lying until you believe!" method. And it does get better:
The UK Times reported
that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters
rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because
it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from
the climate skeptics media side.”
“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some
scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate
activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of
Reading, told the Times.
Bengtsson was one of the study’s authors and recently joined the camp of scientists skeptical of global warming.
Now, all that's really good; but the University of Queensland has come out with this:
The university has told climate skeptic blogger Brandon
Schollenberger that the data on the study he possesses was illegally
obtained and they would take legal action against him if he published
“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” said Queensland’s acting pro-vice-chancellor Alastair McEwan.
To me that sounds like "Oh sweet Marx, he got hold of the data! How do we stop him from publishing it?" to me.
From Mr. Schollenberger's blog:
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came
into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to
me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has
threatened to sue me if I do.
I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide
you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I
do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their
letter threatening me:
That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.
Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:
This demand is interesting. According to it, I’m not just prevented
from disclosing any of the “intellectual property” (IP) I’ve gained
access to. I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using
the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses
on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.
But that’s not all I can’t do. The University of Queensland also demanded I cease and desist from:
This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him
to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data
I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the
data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if
people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.
He refused. Repeatedly.
Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to
do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of
Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.
Doesn't all that just give you warm and fuzzy thoughts about the reliability of the study? And Cook?
The definition of 'consensus' is apparently "Lie and obfuscate and threaten until everyone gives up and accepts it." Or something.