John Cook

From iGeek
Revision as of 22:44, 25 July 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Fake Climate Scientists and creator of the propaganda site: Skeptical Science. If you want to know the basics of his integrity, just read the details of the "study" he got published.

Skeptical Science Studies
Psychology Student and Climate Activist behind the fraudulently named and often discredited Skeptical Science blog, John Cook, did a couple of "Studies" to try to prove the 97% consensus.
  • 2013 Cook selected 11,944 abstracts of papers, from pro-AGW journals, then cherry picked 64 papers for their use of sensationalist terms (like "Global Warming"), and found that 63 of those 64 agreed that "most" of the warming was from man: that's where his 97% number came from.
  • No credible author, scientist or statistician could look at the methodology and not scoff. Quickly Director of the Center for Climatic Research at University of Delaware, David Legates, did a peer reviewed rejoinder that detailed many of the errors in Cook's methodology, including showing that 23 of the 63 paper’s authors disagreed with Cook’s conclusions that they supported Climate Consensus. Resulting in 41 of 11,944 abstracts agreeing with Global Warming (a 0.3% consensus, not 97%). Thousands of FakeNews sites cite Cook and 97% anyway, without mentioning Legates rebuttal.
  • 2016 Cook decided to double-down on his fraud by doing a synthesis study, of adding up the totals of his, Oreskes, Doran, Anderegg studies together: ignoring all of those studies were discredited for the same methodological flaws of his 2013 Study. But now FakeNews outlets could more easily cite his 2016 "study" without mentioning Legates refutation, and only the truly curious would discover that all the studies that made up the 2016 Cook study had been discredited.