Haha, the authors of those articles? You didn't even read it. You mean the scientists? They interviewed the scientists that Cook used and sourced and they called bullshit on his report because he purposely misrepresented what they claimed. Huge consensus on what exactly?
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.
Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted, Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.
Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."
Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper? Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative.
That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions.
Further analysis reveals that Cook et al. (2013) was created as a propaganda campaign not a scientific study and is shown to be statistically worthless by Dr. Tol
Dr. Tol has published a scathing editorial in the Guardian and a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Energy Policy completely discrediting the shoddy methodology employed by Cook et al. (2013) and showed their findings to be worthless,
The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.
Cook is a complete fraud. Skeptical Science is a propaganda blog site.