Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

It’s true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening

Today, the most comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed climate research to date was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Our analysis found that among papers expressing a position…

Hands up if your research endorses the existence of human-caused climate change. ☻☺/Flickr

Today, the most comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed climate research to date was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Our analysis found that among papers expressing a position on human-caused global warming, over 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Overwhelming agreement among scientists had already formed in the early 1990s. And the consensus is getting stronger.

In a previous Conversation article, I argued that climate denial is essentially consensus denial. For over two decades, attacking the scientific consensus has been a central part of the movement to prevent meaningful climate action.

As early as 1991, Western Fuels Association spent $510,000 on a campaign to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”. Their strategy was to construct the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen. This approach was concisely articulated in a memo to Republicans by political strategist Frank Luntz, leaked in 2002:

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

Using Skeptical Science’s taxonomy of climate myths, a recent analysis tracked climate misinformation published in opinion editorials from 2007 to 2010 by syndicated conservative columnists. The most popular myth was “there is no consensus”. More recently, a variation of the “no consensus” myth has emerged – the notion that the consensus is “on the verge of collapse”.

Our analysis examined the status of the scientific consensus over 21 years of published climate research, from 1991 to 2011. We searched for any papers matching the search “global warming” or “global climate change” in the Web of Science, a database of scientific peer-reviewed research. We rated the level of endorsement of human-caused global warming in each abstract, a short summary at the start of each paper.

In 2007, Naomi Oreskes predicted that as a consensus forms, fewer papers should explicitly endorse the consensus position. For example, you don’t expect to see geography research papers endorsing the fact that the earth is round. Our analysis confirmed this prediction, finding most abstracts didn’t state a position on whether humans were causing global warming.

However, we did identify over 4,000 abstracts that did state a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,000 abstracts, 97.1% endorsed the consensus. There was overwhelming agreement on human-caused global warming in every year since 1991.

To independently check our results, we also invited the thousands of scientists who authored the climate papers to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers. We received 1,200 responses with over 2,000 papers receiving a “self-rating”. Interestingly, most of the abstracts that we rated as “No Position” turned out to endorse the consensus in the full paper, according to the papers’ authors. Among all the papers that were self-rated as expressing a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

The level of consensus among climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming (Cook et al 2013)

Our results are strikingly consistent with other measurements of consensus. The seminal work on consensus was conducted by Naomi Oreskes who in 2004 analysed 928 climate papers. She found zero papers rejecting the consensus. We analysed the same papers as Oreskes and similarly found zero rejections in the papers matching her search parameters.

Two more recent studies have sought to measure the level of consensus in the scientific community. A survey of Earth scientists found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97% agreed that humans were significantly changing global temperature. A compilation of scientists making public statements on climate change found that for the scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research, there was 97% agreement.

While a number of studies have independently established overwhelming agreement among climate scientists, two decades of sustained attack on the consensus has been effective. There is a gaping chasm between the public perception and the actual 97% consensus. When a US representative sample was asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer was around 50%.

Perception of consensus (survey of US representative sample by John Cook) versus the 97% consensus (Doran et al 2009, Anderegg et al 2010, Cook et al 2013).

Why is climate denial synonymous with consensus denial? Social scientists are just starting to figure out what climate deniers have understood for decades. A 2011 study found that when people correctly understand that climate scientists agree, they are more likely to support policy to mitigate climate change. This is why a political operative hired by fossil fuel interests to undermine climate policy focused on attacking the consensus, arguing “If we win the science argument, it’s game, set, and match.”

This underscores the importance of correcting the mis-perception that scientists are still debating whether humans are causing global warming. An important step towards stronger public support for meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap.

The results of the paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature are summarised in a simple, user-friendly manner at theconsensusproject.com.

Join the conversation

155 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

    1. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Liam Hanlon

      Sadly Mr Hanlon, fossil fuel companies have to spend 50% of their time to make fuel so rich westerners can fly to Europe for holidays or drive their 2 tonne Audi 4WD or install a split system in their new home.

      Bad fossil fuel companies, bad, bad bad.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    2. The Roy

      Professional Systems Engineer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Gerard you consistently attack commenters on this website whom support the consensus of human induced global warming for using fossil fuels, such as your typical attacks about air travel and the like above.

      Why the would anyone here give up their air travel or their 2 ton audi 4WD, when we know that yourself (or people like you - managing directors) waste an inordinate amount of energy - especially fossil fuels undertaking air travel, driving sportscars, owning and underutiling exorbidantly large houses, etc? (or do you get carbon offsets?)

      report
    3. Liam Hanlon

      Student

      In reply to The Roy

      Not to mention its electricity generation for industry that causes the most carbon pollution...but hey deniers would rather blame individuals.

      report
    1. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      A study of 4,000 papers by actively publishing evangelical Christian scientists found that 97% endorsed the consensus that the world is 6,000 years old.

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      "...Point totally missed..." ??

      It's like this Malcolm.. You claimed that a study of 4,000 papers by actively publishing evangelical Christian scientists found that 97% endorsed the consensus that the world is 6,000 years old.

      All I wanted was evidence for that claim. Could you provide a link to the study so I can read it please?

      report
    3. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to David Bentley

      Absolutely nonsense, David. That's not what Mr Cook's study shows. Rather, it shows that 97% of papers endorse the consensus. This is not the same thing as providing evidence of AGW! Say, how many of the papers actually deal with attribution?

      report
    4. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm, if not scientific evidence, what do you think the 97% of papers use to derive their conclusions? Opinion, faith, tea leaves, Mark Lawson's financial models?

      Further, the papers are not "endorsing" anything. They are providing the findings of the research conducted and drawing conslutions based on empirical evidence collected.

      John Cook's study says that 97% of the scientific papers have conclusions (based on collected evidence) which are consistent with the AGW hypothesis. Do you understand the concept of a meta-analysis?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

      I don't know how many of the papers deal with attribution but I would suggest that a great number of them do. Maybe you can ask John.

      You're really grasping at straws here Malcolm.

      report
    5. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm, the "97% of papers" do not endorse the consensus. They ARE the consensus. The papers come first. Then, as they vastly accumulate, a "consensus" follows.

      report
    6. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Sorry, Mike. I was just trying to make a subtle point about the religiousity of climate science. So many of the papers I've read about climate change and global warming deal with the effects of warming but not the cause. However, they always managed to include a paragraph or two about the impact of increasing greenhouse gas emissions upon the system that they're studying. The authors of these papers pressupose the validity of AGW, even though they've never done an attribution study. I suspect that this is true of many of the papers that Mr Cook included in his study. This pressuposition, justified or not, is what my analogy sought to highlight. Mr Cook's study appears to have been done well but it's annoying to see people here thinking that the results constitute evidence of AGW.

      report
    7. Jeremy Hall

      PhD student

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Mr Cook mentioned specifically mentioned those papers in the article. In the paragraph which said: "For example, you don’t expect to see geography research papers endorsing the fact that the earth is round".
      You can't publish science that has already been done - looking for evidence that humans are the main cause of GW is increasingly a thing of the past.

      report
    8. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Martin,
      This paper does not argue from consensus. It is simply a demonstration from evidence that the consensus exists, has existed for many years, and is increasing. Therefore the claim that their is no consensus is demonstrated to be false.

      The fact that 97% of experts in the field accept the position that global warming is occurring is a fact that contributes to our understanding. The experts opinions have the backing of their scientific knowledge and observations.

      Deniers typically commit the fallacy of Argument from ignorance. That is the claim that climate change is not true because it has not / can not be proven.

      It is the overwhelming body of evidence contained in the scientific papers examined that convinces sensible people that AGW is occurring, NOT the fact that they all reach the same conclusion.

      report
    9. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm

      In that case I understand your point.

      But there is a difference between a paper on climate, which will investigate causal mechanisms, and a paper on a different subject - say, wildlife - which will reference the climate change studies to provide an explanation for an observed phenomenon.

      In both cases it is perfectly reasonable for the authors to 'endorse' climate change. In the first case, the authors can endorse the anthropogenic aspects of climate change, because they will have…

      Read more
    10. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      "publishing evangelical Christian scientists"

      As we all know, science is a religion. Don't we Malcolm?

      report
  1. Malcolm Short

    Superannuation

    Nice one. So how many of the papers included in the study dealt specifically with attribution?

    report
  2. Tyson Adams

    Scientist and author

    Good work John (and co-authors).

    I await the inevitable denial of this fantastic study.

    report
  3. Mark Lawson

    senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

    Oh sure - there is no doubt that the majority (consensus, whatever) of climate scientists support the global warming theory such as it is. But the theory still has to be persuaded to provide a useful output, and some sort of policy has to be decided from that output.

    The problem is not the science but the fact that scientists have built three, very complex, inter-related forecasting systems (forecasting is a business subject, incidentally) which partially depend on economics (for the emissions…

    Read more
    1. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Unfortunately Mark doesn't understand anything about scientific forecasting. Must be because it's a business subject and that's where he would prefer it stayed.

      He states that back testing models "is known to be useless as an indicator of forecasting success". Say what Mark? How do you think we come up with weather models or any number of other very useful predictive scientific models? Epidemiology anyone?

      Mark's scepticism around back testing is fair enough when it comes to back testing…

      Read more
    2. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Sou from Bundanga

      Not quite sure what you are saying but I can say that the forecasting efforts by climate scientists has to date been decidedly amateurish. You need to declare assumptions, particularly critical assumptions, for example, and work out a sensitivity analysis. Also it would be good to go back to the earliest forecasts and compare those with what happened. I am only aware of exactly two attempts in the literature to do anything like that, and one of those is hopelessly flawed. What amateurs.

      report
    3. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix - I'm not saying anybody invented anything. Forecasting is a recognised subject - its in marketing, not in science - and the climate scientists are dealing with forecasting systems which they don't know how to assess properly. they are also far too complicated to be of any use.

      As for the last par, sorry but its now very well know. In fact there have been articles on this site defending the forecasts, saying the lack of increase is due to aerosols or some such - by that ANU scientist who defends greenhouse theory. I'm not challenging any of it, just pointing to it.

      report
    4. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "I am only aware of exactly two attempts in the literature to do anything like that, and one of those is hopelessly flawed."

      It is left as an exercise to the reader to work out which two. Mark is too busy waving his arms about wildly to provide details.

      report
    5. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Its not just Armstrong that says this, although his is the most rigorous approach I've seen. The Schmidt link you give is just silly propaganda that does not refute anything.

      Anyone who is aware of the sorry history of forecasting will know that forecasts are incredibly difficult to get right, and very easy to mess up. They also need to be properly assessed and stress tested by an independent body (not the IPCC). What can we expect to see say, in the the upper atmosphere, if temperatures go up? What can we expect if temperatures go down and so on?

      Scientists have managed to fool themselves that something like this has happened. It hasn't.

      report
    6. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      This particular line in climate science denialism is via the Heartland Institute

      The original article attacking climate science appeared in the climate science denier's journal of choice "Energy and Environment".
      "Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts"
      http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/cx27431844018158/

      As you would expect, the authors are both members of various right-wing think tanks.

      http://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green
      http://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrong

      report
    7. Liam J

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mr Lawson is confusing economic forecasting (pushpoll guesswork) with actual sciences, he's still bitter about the GFC humiliation.

      Never expect a man to see a trend if his job depends on him not seeing it.

      report
    8. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      So, Mark believes that people who have been forecasting future temperature changes are amateurish and that the whole damn system is just too complex for a model to be of any real use.

      Oh gosh Mark. So what shall we do? Just sit back and hope it'll be ok I guess. BRACE!

      report
    9. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to David Bentley

      David - I'm so glad you mentioned weather models.. they make an excellent illustration of the process. Weather men are hit over the head by reality every day. "We forecast it would be sunny and its raining, what happened?" So they go back and figure out why, adjust their processes and try again. They can also point to a track record. They also now have the advantage of satellites. The forecasts don't have to be back tested.

      Now you can grasp the vast difference between those and climate forecasting. You may go back to the first IPCC forecast in 1990 and point out that the actual increase between 1990 and 2010 is bang on the minimum for the dire scenario in the report (or mid-point for the second, milder scenario), and the usual result is that someone tries to redefine the initial forecast.

      One interesting intermediate point is seasonal forecasting, but I've yet to see any rigorous comparison of seasonal forecasts with results.

      report
    10. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Ahhhhhhh Mr Hansen, that old JetA1 fuel burner himself.

      Still lecturing the rest of us to stop burning fossil fuels.

      Some things never change.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    11. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      Are you denying that the planet is warming and/or are you arguing that because the models can't predict future warming with 100% accuracy that we shouldn't do anything to prevent said warming?

      report
    12. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Sou from Bundanga

      " I do hope you're not suggesting that social and economic policy tools aren't robust enough to deal with uncertainties, however well or loosely they might be scoped. "
      You ought to ask Wayne from the Bungagunga swamp on that Sou, the Swan being the one with the neck longer than ducks.
      I do not think they're too certain anymore on the climate and earth either.

      report
    13. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Mike - the point is if you can point to any proper attempts to evaluate the forecasts then please jump in. For the record one of them is http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

      That's the non-flawed one and yes I know the abstract says the Frist Assessment Report forecast seems accurate but look closely and it says "a" forecast. In fact, as the full paper shows, its referring to the second, milder scenario in the report.

      The other is a 2007 paper which you'll find more comforting, but I just can't search for it now.

      report
    14. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Hardly a useful response.. its up to teh scientists to work within forecasting guidelines, not invent their own.,.

      report
    15. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Liam J

      Liam - my job doesn't depend on this at all.. yours might however. No the forecasting systems they are using are properly analysed with forecasting techniques, particularly the first tier which involves economics. They all also involve assumptions which have to be clearly stated and tested. Hasn't happened.

      report
    16. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad - I'm saying the models are completely unproven. Nothing like proper testing or comparison of early forecasts with results has occurred. There has been no proper analysis of assumptions or proper sensitivity forecasts. Scientists think something like this has happened. It hasn't. Then there are various warning signs like the forecasts requiring CO2 rates of increases and warming rates several times anything observed to date. Oh oh! Its not a question of the science .

      In any case, even if there is any guide as to what level of CO2 might cause any particular level of warming, the economic case collapsed some time ago. We are left with one credable strategy. That of adaptation. Like it or lump it.

      report
    17. The Roy

      Professional Systems Engineer

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark, Mathematical modelling for use in prediction of outcomes has been used in the technical fields of science and engineering for a long, long time - to great effect I might add flight controls, engine controls, various technical design persuits and of course climate change models.

      Just because forcasting in economics and marketing is inherently less accurate due to human behavoir (and or poor modelling techniques/assumtions/testing, etc) does NOT mean that is the case in relation to other technical applications such as climate chanage modelling.

      I love your comment about systems/mathematical models been far too complicated to be of any use... If you are suggesting climate models are 'far too complicated to be of any use', do you realise how many systems you rely on to live, communicate and travel that are in that category...

      report
    18. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to The Roy

      The Roy
      I'm perfectly well aware of the use of mathematical modelling, and of the use of algorithms/modelling in all aspects of our lives. You are completely missing the point. I said the climate models are too complicated to be of any use. They are. The most complex models yon would have encountered are child's play in comparison to those things and they are run in totally different ways to anything you would recognise as modelling as such.

      Because the starting conditions can vary they have…

      Read more
    19. Jeremy Hall

      PhD student

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      I suspect in business, you good outcomes by making the best possible choices based on the information available at the time. Choosing to do nothing until you're completely certain of the outcome sounds like a good way to get left behind events and fail.

      Maybe that doesn't apply in business, I wouldn't really know. But it certainly applies here.

      report
    20. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      You said 'the theory has been modified of late' in your original post. That is the plain lie.

      Nobody has 'modified a theory', simply observed and explained where the extra energy has gone (mainly into heating the upper levels of the oceans and increased polar ice melt, for example) and also noted that increased aerosols, in combination with these factors, explain why the increased energy has not, in the short term, resulted in great rises of surface temperature. This is not any kind of modification…

      Read more
    21. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      So, the vast body of peer reviewed literature in respectable journals doesn't constitute being 'stress tested by an independent body'? Or do you require certification by the kangaroo court of marketing departments in commerce faculties before you accept something as having been rigorously assessed.

      Personally, I think I'd rather remain in the real world.

      report
    22. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      So, the IPCC, recognising that actual results would depend on unpredictable variables like amounts of greenhouse gases actually emitted, develped a range of forecasts to cover that intrinsically unknowable question, and the actual outcome was in accord with one of those predictions and in line with actual emissions means that they were inaccurate?

      report
    23. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      What a disgrace to journalism that we have a senoir journalist at a major news outlet going around intentionally spreading mis-information about climate change - in 2013!!!

      report
    24. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      Even if you accept that short term economic outcomes are more important than the long term outcomes for future generations (which I do not). Where is your evidence that for mitigation "the economic case collapsed some time ago"?

      report
    25. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Nick - take a careful look at the link you point to. See the graph at the end. That model worked for a time but now something else seems to be happening. This is the problem even with simple models keyed to factors the people who devise them believe are driving the system. they back test it. Hey it works and then try to use it to forecast, and the results start diverging. You'll note it starts diverging just at the time scientists started making serious forecasts.. Murphy's Law applies to forecasts.

      report
    26. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Jeremy Hall

      Jeremy - it has nothing to do with certainty. We are talking about trying to reach a certain point in CO2 concentrations to avoid a certain point in temperatures when both the forecast for the CO2 point and the temperature point rely on entirely unproven models that forecast rates of warming and such several times anything we've seen to date

      We also have no means of getting that desired CO2 levels, international efforts aren't happening, and the economic case collapsed some time ago. So what were we arguing about?

      report
    27. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Andrew Vincent

      Andrew - that closer. You are beginning to grasp some of the realities. I never said they'd failed. I said they were unproven which is quite true. Over the past decade they haven't been giving useful results but as I've been told endlessly, that's not a fair test. Okay, but there are ways to test them, but there has been nothing like independent testing of output and results as models.

      I don't think they need to be absolutely accurate but the supporters of these things seem to think they are.

      report
    28. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix - Bbbbwwwhahahah! S you admit to a modification. If you want claim that its not really to do with the theory as such (I thought the theory was all about heat) that's your problem.

      report
    29. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix - not the vast body of peer reviewed material has nothing to do with testing of models. Where it does look at the models its back testing, which is useless for assessing their ability to forecast.

      report
    30. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      How do you make the point that the "economic case collapsed some time ago"? What economic case are you referring to? The carbon trading economics or the broader we should do something about climate change because it has a positive net present value argument? You need to be more specific.

      "We have no means of getting that [sic] desired CO2 levels". What's your point here? Because stabilising CO2 levels at what we hope will be a moderately safe level is difficult, we shouldn't do anything?

      I have another question. Do you have house and car insurance? I mean presumably you don't because it's impossible to accurately forecast the risk of you having an accident or your house burning down. Therefore best to do nothing I guess rather than taking sensible steps to mitigate known, albeit difficult to quantify, risks

      report
    31. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      "Mark is the clean energy reporter, and editor, and complaints editor" - Wow, I didnt realise that, this is shocking but I guess it says alot about the credibility and vested interest of the Australian Financial Review

      That really is disgusting, thanks for the info

      report
    32. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "But the theory still has to be persuaded to provide a useful output"

      AKA, the third stage of denial.

      First stage - it's not happening.

      Second stage - it's not our fault.

      Third stage - it won't do any harm/we're not certain how much harm it will do.

      report
    33. Mark Lawson

      senior journalist at Australian Financial Review

      In reply to Brad Farrant

      Brad - I am talking about the long term economic outcomes. The longer the term the worse it gets for greenhouse action. A lot has been written about this but basically there wasn't much of one to begin with. Two reports found a case, that I know of, one was from Nicholas Stern who had to use an absurdly low time value of money to make it work - see the Australian Productivity Commission's The Stern Review and Assessment of its Methodology http://www.pc.gov.au/research/staff-working/sternreview .. two other prominent critics of the economic case are Prof William Nordhaus (seems to be a greenhouser) and Prof Robert Mendelshon.. I don't have time for more links here..

      Te other was by Ross Garnaut and I never understood how he reached his conclusion, and I never saw any popular explanation of how he did it.

      In any case any justification for limiting emissions always supposed effective international action, which is clearly going to be delayed for decades.

      report
    34. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Gosh, what devastating rhetoric!

      Are you able to distinguish between energy (the fundamental thing) and heat (one of its main manifestations)? If you were, you might appreciate just how fatuous your comments are.

      report
    35. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "the economic case collapsed some time ago. We are left with one credable strategy. That of adaptation."

      That's interesting. So we would be able to adapt to a 4 deg C warmer world because that's cheaper than avoiding it. Won't that be fun.

      report
    36. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      So, perhaps you'd like to lend them your time machine so they could forward test the models? (I'm guessing that must be how marketers and economists do their forecasting, GFC notwithstanding).

      But, wait, the climate models have actualy been running for quite a few years now, haven't they, and have proved pretty good. Or doesn't that count as forward testing because it began in the past?

      report
    37. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, I think the word 'superiors' might be a poor choice to describe the editorial board of AFR...

      report
    38. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      Are you arguing that the warmer the planet is projected to get (ie. the longer the term we continue with business-as-usual), the bigger the long term economic damage, the less the economic case for mitigation? This seems an impossible argument.

      Do you realise that you are part of the reason for the delay in effective international action?

      report
    39. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      And Mark is perfectly entitled to like research by russian scientists and mini-maunders, and the disappointment I will soon feel when the earth starts to cool. I am an activist.
      I will never read this paper. Just as I have no regard for obscure russian scientists running the political protection racket for Vladimir Putin and the russian oil industry.

      report
    40. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      You say that "Stern uses an absurdly low time value of money". What is your evidence for this? I note that the majority of commentators quoted by the PC do not share your views and they are vastly more knowledgable in this area than you. Only Nordhaus has a particularly different take. The rest of the commentators suggest that it could be a bit low, but then it becomes more of an ethical discusion since the use of any (real) discount rate will preference current utility over future utility…

      Read more
    41. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "I don't think they need to be absolutely accurate but the supporters of these things seem to think they are."

      Classic text book strawman right there. "My opponents say X, which I disagree with". No they don't. Check the link I posted.

      You have previously stated that IPPC projections are wrong by extrapolating the last decades trends and comparing them with an outlier projection (of 6º rise in 100 years). You said they failed and you did so by using your own flawed logic.

      report
    42. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Computer models are mostly useful at determining boundary conditions. They're not intended as a tool for predicting the future.

      report
    43. Brad Farrant

      Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development at University of Western Australia

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Mark,

      The following quote outlines some of the other problems with the approach you advocate -

      "An investigation of the theoretical aspects of how the climate changes suggests that scientific narratives of climate change are socially constructed, biasing scientific narratives to descriptions of gradual as opposed rapid, non-linear change. Evidence of widespread step changes in recent climate records and in model projections of future climate is being overlooked because of this. Step-wise climate…

      Read more
    44. David Bentley

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      Oh, and for some interesting more reading Mark, perhaps you could try brushing up on a bit of Prof. Nordhaus, who whilst having a view that the Stern discount rates are potentially too low, nonetheless still significantly favours doing more now to reduce the risks and to avoid a situation where we are playing in the roulette wheel in a Climate Casino.

      "The point is that CHL have the impact of uncertainty exactly backward. A sensible policy would pay a premium to avoid the roulette wheel in a…

      Read more
    45. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark Lawson

      "There has been no proper analysis of assumptions or proper sensitivity forecasts."

      The fact that you're ignoring is that there are reasonably accurate determinations of equilibrium climate sensitivity which tell us what will eventually happen once all the temporary garbage we've put in the atmosphere settles out. Complex models are just to tell us what could happen in the near future so concentrating on those is just myopia.

      "Then there are various warning signs like the forecasts requiring CO2 rates of increases .. several times anything observed to date."

      What "forecasts of CO2 rates of increase" are you raving about?

      report
  4. Greg North

    Retired Engineer

    Your heading is a bit misleading there John
    You criticise the strategy by Western Fuels Association and yet have your own strategy it seems by not putting the full facts front and centre.
    From your first link:
    " Letter
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts…

    Read more
    1. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Yes I did Mikey but you seem to have breezed over the heading and the difference between
      " It’s true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening "
      and what is in the article
      " We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

      I'll let you do the arithmetic.

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Greg North

      Greg, I'd be willing to bet that none of those papers expressed a position on gravity. Does that mean that climate scientists don't accept gravity?

      report
    3. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Greg North

      Greg, I think you will find that John Cook didn't write the heading. They differ wherever the article is published. Try Johns website for "his" heading.

      report
    4. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Greg is struggling with the realization that his climate science denial is from the fringe.

      report
    5. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      He and others like him are certainly from the fringe, particuarly here at TC or at SkS. But in another world over at Judith Curry's place he'd be pretty much mainstream. As an aside, have you ever wondered why the SkS website gets next to no traffic/comments these days when Climate etc... gets hundreds and hundreds of comments?

      report
    6. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm Short suggests that climate science is wrong because a climate denier blog gets more comments!

      Short has a list of logical fallacies and is working through them one by one.

      report
    7. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      97% of Mike Hansen's comments don't relate to the article.

      Still, in my case, 98% don't either

      Gerard Dean

      report
    8. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Climate Science Denial maybe a fringe culture to you Mr Hansen, but the great bulk of the population don't seem to agree.

      After all, if they did, the QF1 flight to London would be nearly empty.

      But it is not.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    9. Gerard Dean

      Managing Director

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Watts Up With That is one mean mother of a site. It is the most popular climate related site on the planet.

      Some fringe.

      Keep burning the JetA1 fuel Mike, then lecture the rest of us to stop.

      Gerard Dean

      report
    10. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Oh, Mike. I said nothing of the sort, although it's reasonable for you to infer that I did. However, I am being sincere when I ask the question. Maybe it's because there's more of a progressive focus on the current state of climate science at Climate Etc.. whereas the typical posting on SkS perhaps doesn't have such a wide audience appeal. BTW, Judith Curry's site can hardly be called a 'denier blog' as true believers seem to be well represented there. As best I can tell it's a pretty even allocation between skeptics and believers.

      report
    11. The Roy

      Professional Systems Engineer

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Why would they or anyone else for that matter give up their flight if they know you aren't going to?

      Prisoners dilema... I won't stop flying Gerard because I don't like the idea that you will still fly.

      Thus there is a place for regulation to put a price on externalities like pollution - its pretty simple we did it with CFC's for the Ozone layer - so as mush as either one of us ight like to use CFC's its mostly illegal and the hole in the Ozone layer was stabised for along period due to that regulation.

      So i'll stop flying when you stop flying because there is a carbon price that makes us pay for the pollution and future damage to the environment we will do, ok?

      report
    12. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      There's this funny little distinction between quality and quantity, but that's exactly the bit that trols don't get, isn't it?

      report
    13. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      Funny isn't it, when Cook points out that there is a found 'consensus' of EVIDENCE on climate change, people like you bleat about science not being a consensus or democratic process, even though nobody was saying it was, yet you're happy to argue that merely because WUWT gets lots of hits that proves it's worthwhile.

      On that basis, porn would be the answer to everything, as it's pretty much the most popular part of the internet...

      report
    14. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      ".....Watts Up With That is one mean mother of a site. It is the most popular climate related site on the planet....."

      Yes Gerard. And more people drink Coolabah cask wine than Grange Hermitage.

      And that is a pretty good analogy of the difference between wattsupmybutt and SkS.

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "the great bulk of the population don't seem to agree.

      After all, if they did, the QF1 flight to London"

      Amazing, the great bulk of the population were on the QF1 flight to London.

      You learn garbage every day from Gerard Dean.

      report
    16. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      "It is the most popular climate related site on the planet."

      I agree. Crackpots are more active about their beliefs than most people.

      report
    17. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      "Judith Curry's site can hardly be called a 'denier blog'"

      It's a doubt blog.

      report
  5. John Kelmar

    Small Business Consultant

    I am still a sceptic on Climate Change, as much of the research data pertains to the last 100 years.

    The temperature on Earth changes on a periodic basis - it is usually warmer in the middle of each day than at night, warmer in summer than winter etc. If we examined data from the past 1,000 or perhaps 1,000,000 years or more we may well see a stronger periodical trend.

    Maybe we are still moving forward from the Ice Age?

    report
    1. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to John Kelmar

      Well blow me down John, you might just be on to something there!
      Is it some good stuff you'd not mind sharing?

      report
    2. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Greg North

      "The temperature on Earth changes on a periodic basis - it is usually warmer in the middle of each day than at night, warmer in summer than winter etc"

      This has got be satire. Right?

      Although North seems amazed by the discovery. LOL.

      report
    3. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to John Kelmar

      And maybe the moon really is made of green cheese, John. Then again, you could, just as an interesting alternative, actually consider the scientific evidence. It may come as a surprise to you that the very scientists who provided the basis from which you note that earth's temperature changes (or were you born knowing that or did you read it somewhere in the bible?) might have actually thouight of that and taken account of it in their work.

      report
    4. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to John Kelmar

      John Kelmar says:

      "....I am still a sceptic on Climate Change, as much of the research data pertains to the last 100 years...."

      You are not a sceptic at all John - you are a denier.

      A sceptic is someone who does not accept anything on face value, but wants to see the evidence. And when they are shown the evidence, they change their position to one of acceptance. Scientists are all sceptics - it is the nature of their job.

      On the other hand, deniers are people who adopt an ideological…

      Read more
    5. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to John Kelmar

      "I am still a sceptic on Climate Change, as much of the research data pertains to the last 100 years."

      Much of the research data also pertains to before the last 100 years.

      Even just from that fact you conclusion is false.

      report
  6. Travis Dixon

    logged in via Facebook

    Regardless of whether humans caused the current warming or not, shouldn't the wording of the science now be more focussed on our ability to change it going forward?

    Personally I doubt we're going to be able to modify our behaviour quickly enough to make a difference, so the argument is wasted effort that should be going into how to survive with the projected damage

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Travis Dixon

      Travis, if we're talking 5 degrees celsius, what you call 'survive' would be a very brutish and nasty process indeed.

      report
  7. Comment removed by moderator.

    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      100% of people who's only contribution to the debate on climate change is to cut and paste the words "JetA1" over and over again are trolls who should be ignored.

      report
    2. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Gerard Dean

      And like all true denialists, Gerard fails to provide a citation.

      report
  8. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    The author, John Cook, first penned term 'Implicit Deniers' to describe those who say they believe in climate change and call for cuts to fossil fuel burning, then continue to burn fossil fuel for their own pleasure.

    Keep unmasking those Implicit Deniers John.

    Gerard Dean

    report
  9. Grant Burfield

    Dr

    97% again! 97 is of prime importance in climate communication science. It's a very happy prime.

    report
    1. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      97% of Boy Scouts and their parents believe they should allow openly Gay, Lesbian, Bisexuals and Transgendered people join the Scouts. It is true:
      http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/22/1764441/boy-scouts-97-percent/?mobile=nc
      In Reichsgau Sudetenland 97% of the electorate voted for the NSDAP in December 1938.
      Last year Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov won reelection as President of Turkmenistan with 97% of the vote.
      Climate Science is in good company.

      report
    2. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Sarcasm? Certainly not Felix. Whenever the numerals 97 are trotted out for an airing in Climate Communications Science, derision is more appropriate.

      report
    3. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      In the absence of any actual evidence, I suppose there's nothing better for you to do than split hairs between sarcasm and derision

      report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Don Aitkin

      So, interest in a consensus of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is 'almost irrelevant to what is happening around the world.' With your assistance, there is a sad element of truth in that statement, Don.

      Didn't you used to be a scholar once?

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Don Aitkin

      "......John Cook is currently the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He also runs skepticalscience.com, a website that makes climate science accessible to the general public and examines the arguments of global warming skeptics. He co-authored the book “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand” with environmental scientist Haydn Washington and the popular booklet “The Debunking Handbook” with Stephan Lewandowsky. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Western Australia...."

      Reading not your strong suit Don?

      report
    3. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Don Aitkin

      "Why doesn't The Conversation mention that Cook is the founder and active presence of the"

      What a shocking omission. Very few people would have known that.

      "oddly named Skeptical Science website?"

      It's only odd to people who arrogantly think they have a monopoly on skepticism.

      report
    4. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      "Didn't you used to be a scholar once?"

      Yes, and then he turned into a glorified clerk.

      report
    5. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      "Reading not your strong suit Don?"

      This new internet thingy with its pointing-and-clicking is a problem for us oldies including Don.

      report
    6. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      From Wiki - "Don Aitkin is a writer, strategist, consultant and director who is the Chairman of Australia’s National Capital Authority. He served as Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Canberra from 1991 to 2002, and as Vice-President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee in 1994 and 1995. He played an influential role in the evolution of national policies for research and higher education from the mid-1980s, when he was the Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee…

      Read more
  10. Hinton John Lowe

    educationist

    Abbott and the cabal of science antagonists & climate change deniers who determine LNP policy are now in full retreat, or at least ducking for cover- no doubt hoping no-one remembers. The duplicity and cowardice are the least of the worries as these people seem set to win government in September, on the tide of prodigious and relentless production by their propaganda factories, such as the IPA and the Murdoch media empire. Thereafter policy will principally be shaped in the interests of the religionist and wealth elites who pull their strings. We will then have government no better than we deserve.

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to John Phillip

      Perhaps he should also declare that his site is a pro-scientific-evidence site. We realise you don't like that kind of thing.

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to John Phillip

      "......John Cook is currently the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He also runs skepticalscience.com, a website that makes climate science accessible to the general public and examines the arguments of global warming skeptics. He co-authored the book “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand” with environmental scientist Haydn Washington and the popular booklet “The Debunking Handbook” with Stephan Lewandowsky. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Western Australia......"

      If you are going to criticise someone for not declaring their roles John, you should actually read the disclosure statement before you put your fingers on the keyboard.

      It stops you looking foolish when someone points out the obvious.

      report
    3. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to John Phillip

      So is being interested in the truth about the science a bad thing John? The union of concerned scientists is also a "pro-AGW website". So what. Why shouldn't scientists be allowed to agree about AGW. If this is their conclusion, (and has been for decades). The study by John Cook simply reinforces this conclusion. ucs cites Johns research and agrees with its findings . They also mention other studies of this nature.
      http://www.ucsusa.org

      report
  11. Alex Cannara

    logged in via LinkedIn

    This all so absurd, like a Greek tragedy or cheesy soap opera -- the combustion folks already won and converted over 500 billion tons of fossil carbon into $ in their accounts.

    They succeeded in maintaining environmentalists ignorant of the real problem, by concentrating on the flimsiest fluid in the environment -- air. So then they could easily point to the naturally high variability of temperature and other properties of this exceedingly low specific-heat material to bolster doubts.

    This…

    Read more
    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm

      If you want to properly understand climate science, you should concentrate on reading real science papers by real scientists published in real science journals which have been peer reviewed by real scientists.

      Getting your information from the denier echo chamber suggests you have no real desire to learn, and just want to have your ideology reinforced. It is a sure sign of a lack of credibility.

      report
    2. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      "The points she raises are strong and difficult to refute"

      You would say that, wouldn't you?

      report
    3. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, Mike and Alice - take any of her points and put them to bed. Mike, you get your info from SkS so you're hardly in any position to talk about echo chambers (BTW, as much as I like Jo, I'm more a Judith Curry kind of guy). Alice, in your own words have a go at refuting just one of her points. Chris, I say it for a reason i.e. they actually are strong points and difficult to refute!

      I think the biggest mistake that most people have made is that they've chosen to believe that man-made CO2…

      Read more
    4. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Well gee Malcolm, so many claims so many mistakes in the one post.

      ".....Mike, you get your info from SkS so you're hardly in any position to talk about echo chambers ...."

      Nope. I get my information from reading science journals, exactly as I recommended to you.

      "....I think the biggest mistake that most people have made is that they've chosen to believe that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible...."

      Nope again. I don't believe anything. I accept evidence, and the evidence that the…

      Read more
    5. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Oh, and Malcolm, since you like Jo Nova so much, perhaps you could give me your opinion of this from her website:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/global-cooling-coming-archibald-uses-solar-and-surface-data-to-predict-4-9c-fall/

      It seems that we are about to experience a catastrophic drop in temperatures over the next 30 years or so. That despite the heating effect from an increase in atmospheric CO2 (see the graphs and calculations half way down the page).

      Your thoughts?

      report
    6. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      "take any of her points and put them to bed"

      Curry's purpose is selling doubt (as is yours). The scientific evidence is elsewhere if you want to find it. You don't need me to want to find it.

      "I think the biggest mistake that most people"

      correction - 97% of scientists working in the field

      "have made is that they've chosen to believe that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible".

      Yes, they're a bunch of clowns those 97% of scientists working in the field, aren't they? If you say so Malcolm.

      "the rather unremarkable change in global mean temperature anomaly"

      So you think the fastest 0.8 deg C change since the end of the last ice-age is unremarkable? Sure.

      report
    7. Malcolm Short

      Superannuation

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Apologies, Mike - must have been someone else who continually links to SkS to make their point. You'll get there one day - I imagine it will be uncomfortable for you as you appear to be well-equiped for dealing with cognitive dissonance.
      AGW is not a theory - it's a hypothesis which has failed. Please note that I do understand the warming effect of CO2. Those who don't believe that AGW was the cause of recent warming aren't obliged to go any further than to say that the observed changes are…

      Read more
    8. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Malcolm Short

      Malcolm
      JoNova's points are easy to refute and it has been done endlessly.
      Her first claim is that all these papers are irrelevant and have been overturned. Simply not true given that they represent the vast majority of papers in the field published in recognised scientific papers. Her 'argument from ignorance' is that because she is not convinced then the scientists are wrong.
      Her second claim is that because 66% of the papers did not state a position in the abstract these works are uncertain…

      Read more
  12. Toby James

    retired physicist

    Aw gee, John. Your findings are truly amazing. Global warming scientists publishing in global warming periodicals, in support of global warming - believe in global warming.

    How does it differ from 97% of the members of a political party believing that its policies are better than the other party's policies.

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Toby James

      Toby, can you remember that thing called 'evidence' - I'm sure physicists used to use it every now and then...

      report
    2. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, the evidence is in the number of papers that John and his chums counted. I'm not doubting their being able to count, are you?

      Lets hope John doesn't take personally your unkind implication about the figures behind his paper.

      report
  13. Geoffrey Henley

    Research Associate

    Funny, when I look at this paper it tells me that around two-thirds of the papers which meet the selection criteria provide no specific endorsement of AGW. Hence the title of this article is very misleading. Deliberately so in my opinion. It also goes without saying that the term 'climate change is happening' is meaningless since the climate has been changing for billions of years.

    I'm wondering how many of the 4,000 papers written by those authors that endorse the so-called consensus position actually provide any actual proof of AGW. Or are they mainly just evidence of warming without any proof of a link between human activities and changes in global temperatures.

    Once again, John Cook is involved in a pure PR exercise, without any prrof to bak his claims.

    report
  14. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    Call me Mr Tinfoil Hat Moonbat conspiracy monger, but is it really appropriate to use a redirect to the sks site when readers think they are going to an academic journal?
    http://sks.to/tcppaper instead of a direct link: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
    While I don't suppose there is anything particular sinister that SKS can do with the information they collect on users of the Conversation who might be interested in reading this paper, but it seems unnecessary. If SKS were really interested in the number of clicks on the paper I am sure The Conversation would be able to provide them that data.
    I don't suppose The Conversation has a policy on this is, but maybe they should consider developing one? While there is a limit to the extent they can or ought to police intext hyperlinking, such an overt exercise in information gathering is surely not appropriate.

    report
    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      You are a tinfoil hat moonbat conspiracy monger - your words.

      But that being said Sean, I have no idea what you are referring to. When I click on the link, it takes me to the paper in the journal, not the SkS website.

      report
    2. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      " I have no idea what you are referring to."
      Why am I not surprised? At least there are some constants in this world of unceasing flux.

      report
    3. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      And neither should you be surprised Sean.

      After all, it was your claim in the first place that the link took you to SkS. I just pointed out the obvious fact that it doesn't.

      So it shouldn't surprise you that I have no idea what you are talking about when you make an incorrect claim. But you are correct - there are lots of constants in this world of unceasing flux. And one of them is that self proclaimed science deniers don't read the things they are criticising, and take a position totally at odds with the facts.

      report
    4. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      "After all, it was your claim in the first place that the link took you to SkS."
      Well? So it does. It took me there, it took you there and it took everyone who clicked on that link thinking they were heading off to a journal there.

      report
    5. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Sean - I have clicked on the link a dozen times. And every time it takes me direct to the paper in the journal.

      report
  15. Mike Hansen

    Mr.

    Link to the article's news coverage has been tweeted by Barack Obama to his 34 million odd followers.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-makes-aussie-campaigners-day-20130517-2jqrh.html

    You can guess that the 34 million are NOT angry old conservative white guys hanging out at climate crank blogs looking for the next conspiracy theory.

    Only part of the extensive media coverage.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmedia

    report