The latest survey cookery (Verheggen, Cook, et al.) by Warmists is worthless
A new survey of climate scientists has been published. The author team is headed by Bart Verheggen and includes John Cook. Here's the abstract:
"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgment or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols. The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4) providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change."
Having Cook on the author team is obviously going to lead many people to write the paper off without even taking a look at it. When you are proven to have set out to write a paper to meet a predetermined conclusion, that is the way people will treat your work.
Further comments by JR:
Note the following statement from the full paper:
"Participation in our survey was sought from scientists having authored or coauthored peer-reviewed articles or assessment reports related to climate change"
"1868 questionaires were returned, although not all of these were fully completed. This amounts to a response rate of 29%"
So these were NOT atmospheric scientists. They were anybody who had mentioned global warming in some paper or other. It is hence NOT an expert sample.
Furthermore, the response rate was so low that it is not a representative sample either. It is entirely possible that people who wanted to keep their heads down in a very controversial area were the core of the non-respondents -- and a major reason for wanting to keep heads down would be the risks of acknowledging skepticism. The way Warmists have attacked and penalized skepticism has made it impossible to get open responses in the matter and hence vitiates any survey of the field. The conclusions of the study are therefore worthless.
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).