Cook Math : Less Than 50% Equals 97%

The result is we’ll have 12,000 papers with category ratings and endorsement level.

I anticipate there will be around 6000 “neutral” papers.

Popular Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed

President Obama proudly boasted Cook’s fake 97% number, right after it came out.

Skeptical Science” is an acronym for well funded government propaganda

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Cook Math : Less Than 50% Equals 97%

  1. R. de Haan says:

    Congratualations, you once again disclosed the principle of propaganda.

  2. pinroot says:

    One of the things I remember reading (but don’t remember where) was that any paper which did not explicitly state a position on AGW was assumed to endorse it, since everybody knows it’s happening and it didn’t need pointing out, like nobody needs to point out that the sky is blue, because we all just know it.

    On a side note, Cook’s co-conspirator Nuccetelli has said on Twitter that he will start blocking anyone who says he’s funded by “fossil fuel.” Pretty thin skinned it seems.

  3. Streetcred says:

    “The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% “nonsensus” paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

    “”The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?””

    This is an interesting development since nobody is going to finger Hulme as any kind of a sceptic.”

  4. gator69 says:

    Cook math, or Cook meth?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s