Sentences with phrase «cook et»

You have been yammering about Cook et al without having a basic understanding of what it's about.

I wondered why Cook et al would emply 7 categories when they ultimately wanted to divide the debate into two.

As I tried to say in my post, the Cook et al. paper is not something that one would typically publish.

My view of the Cook et al. paper is that it is simply illustrating that there is agreement within the literature and hence we should at least accept this basic result even if we disagree about whether or not the current agreement reflects anything about whether or not the science is robust.

But compared to the rubbish Cook et al publish, this study is really quite rigorous.

The first error in this argument is in ignoring the fact that the data collected in Cook et al. (2013) included categories that quantify the human contribution, as Andrew Montford and the GWPF recently did, for example.

The trouble is, it's not what the Cook et al paper says (apart from the parenthesis) and it's not what the «rating guidelines» at the Skeptical Science website currently say.

Do you dispute this (i.e., do you really think that there is a large disagreement within the literature about the basics of AGW) or are you simply critical of the way in which Cook et al. carried out their study.

[Cook et al 1990 recommend that a cubic - smoothing spline be used, one in which the 50 % frequency response equals ~ 75 % of the record length (n).

So Cook et al have inadvertently managed to get people finally discussing what is the actual definition of the consensus that scientists agree on (and it includes virtually everyone).

I'd say it's no more difficult to define «dangerous» than any of the other terms that, for example, Cook et al have claimed to find an overwhelming consensus for.

Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97 % result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer - reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self - ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

Now regurgitate for us the hocus pocus of Cook et all that massages that 100 papers into a 97 % consensus

and you respond with, «I agree that it is difficult to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently such that each rating category is unique.

If we avoid semantics or pedantic interpretations of what words mean, do you actually dispute the basic result of Cook et al..

In Cook et al. (2013), we broadened the focus beyond definitions that quantify the human contribution, because there's a consensus gap on the mere question of whether humans are causing global warming.

Don and tlitb1, if you're asking if I was involved in any way with the Cook et al. paper — the answer is no.

Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013).

There has been unexpected vehemence in response to Cook et al's paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

He justifies this interpretation by saying that in Cook et al the «A» in «AGW» always implies that human influence is greater than 50 % — and indeed a parenthesis in Cook et al (p2 c1) could be taken as defining «AGW» as «GW with A's influence > 50 %».

The alleged 97 % consensus in Cook et al makes no statement on quantification.

NB, this is not to say there is no consensus — I'm talking about the consensus as it is invoked by the likes of Davey, which the Cook et al paper tries to establish.

You clearly disagree but there's no question that the Cook et al. strategy included that a judgement would need to be made by those who did the ratings.

Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey.

Charlie A - If you disagree with those abstract classifications (asserting, as you seem to, that the raters for Cook et al 2013 somehow mistook papers indicating a small anthropogenic contribution as fully endorsing AGW as the primary cause, despite clear protocols and repeated statements by the authors as to their criteria), then I have a suggestion for you in order to prove your case.

Though to be honest, I figured once Obama started promoting Cook et al's work, a lot more people would be interested in examining it.

Wotts — So, if you want me to be honest, maybe the Cook et al. result will turn out to be completely wrong.

As surveys should be interpreted as consistent if they can be, that means Cook et al find that 97 % of papers discussing the issue endorse the theory that > 50 % of recent warming has been anthropogenic in origin.

It was only when initial rhetorical attacks on Cook et al failed to get traction that «skeptics» suddenly «discovered» that everybody endorses AGW.

It is clear — to me at least — that the goal of the Cook et al. paper was to address this issue.

Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97 % consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects.

I agree that it is difficult to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently such that each rating category is unique.

The only thing demonstrated by the Cook et al (all none «climate scientists», as if that made any difference) exercise is that this is an area were, as Ben has said many times, the politics comes before the «science» and, when the «science» becomes public, a spectacle, it seems to be dominated by second rate minds.

Charlie A @ 11, you can not agree with me that Cook et al survey is difficult to interpret consistently, for I neither said, nor believe anything like that.

Tom said,»... it is not possible to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently... without interpreting «AGW» as being a theory that implies that at least 50 % of recent warming...».

His post discusses Andrew Neil's interview with Ed Davey, Dana's response, and also discusses the Cook et al. consensus paper.

Either way, what we can hold Cook et al responsible for is their intransigence, and their inability to reflect on their work.

Second, it is not possible to interpret the Cook et al survey consistently such that each rating category is unique (ie, so that papers do not fall into to rating categories) without interpreting «AGW» as being a theory that implies that at least 50 % of recent warming (typically ascribed as the last 50 years, or since 1950) has an anthropogenic cause.

Somebody arguing that Cook et al over represents the «consensus» in that Bray and von Storch show the consensus of actual scientists (as opposed to papers) to be 83.5 % has an arguable case.

Moreover it is * nebulous * such that it can mean what Cook et al (and Davey) want it to mean, for * strategic * ends.

You obviously want to imply, like Cook et al, that it means that humans are responsible for most global warming, cause if they ain't nobody cares about the apocalyptic stories.

We know this not just from Cook et al, but from a variety of other studies examining the consensus.

The Cook et al paper does not elevate the debate.

That is just how Cook et al want you to interpret it.

Who by the way, were the authors of the Cook et al paper.

So, for some reason, we need to be respectful of Cook et al, but we can call Professor Hulme an idiot, without even reading what it is he has agreed with.

Cook et al. is not trying to claim that the science is settled because there is a consensus.

It may indicate an issue with the rating system, but doesn't imply (given the system used by Cook et al.) that they rated the abstract incorrectly.

Your assessment of Cook et al. appears to be based on a discussion of what they meant by consensus.

See here for some ideas and references, esp Cook et al., 2004.