Monday, 2 December 2013

Cook Responds: badly

by Anthony Cox

I recently had an article contradicting John Cook’s paper on the alleged 97% consensus of scientists supporting man made global warming (AGW) published at the Newcastle Morning Herald. After coming in all cap-guns blazing in the comments and being nicely rebutted by Directeur Sportif and yours truly, Cook was given a right of reply.

Cook’s right of reply relies largely on the customary comparison of sceptics with tobacco deniers. I deal with that furphy in the comments where I note:
The tactic of comparing sceptics of AGW with those who denied the harmful affects of smoking is not only insulting it is deceitful. It is deceitful because it aims to force people to think the science about AGW has the same certainty as the science about smoking, which it doesn't
This tactic is used by AGW supporters frequently such as when they talk about genuine pollution issues and then introduce AGW so AGW is associated wrongly with real pollutants.

It is a false argument just as the consensus is a false argument despite being used repeatedly by the alarmists. The consensus in all its manifestations has been critiqued at this blog.

However Cook does not just rely on the consensus, he also is lavish in his descriptions of the evidence for AGW; in the comments to his Reply Cook says:
On the contrary, Anthony, the science on human-caused global warming is even stronger than the science about smoking. It's based on many lines of evidence - satellite measurements of outgoing radiation, surface measurements of downward radiation, measurements of a cooling stratosphere while the troposphere warms, winters warming faster than summers, etc. Attribution study after attribution study. Human fingerprints are being observed all over our climate. Consequently, there is a strengthening consensus in the peer-reviewed literature and in the scientific community. 
Our paper doesn't touch on whether global warming will be catastrophic - the only hyperbole and exaggeration is in your characterisation of our research.
This is clearly incorrect, Cook is a catastrophist, and my only “characterisation” of his and all research supporting AGW is that it is wrong as these many posts at this blog demonstrate. In addition the evidence for AGW is non-existent. For instance Cook uses the term “Human Fingerprints”. The term “fingerprint” comes from Figure 9.1 of AR4:

The Figure purports to show the existence of a Tropical Hot Spot, THS, caused by CO2 heating which would have a different fingerprint from other sources of heating. However the THS does not exist.

The non-existence of a THS is not only a refutation of Cook’s claim about “fingerprints” but AGW generally. This is also the case with the absence of Stratosphere cooling:

The graph is plain, clearly showing after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 that the Stratosphere has slightly increased in temperature after re-cooling from the heating caused by Pinatubo.

Just like the consensus, which is false science in any event, all of Cook’s so-called “fingerprints” and “attribution study after attribution study” are non-existent.


  1. Poor Cooky, he just can't take a trick. He said measurements of outgoing and downward radiation which got me laughing. ERBE Mr Cook, we all know what that is don't we and you old son just made a complete goose of yourself.
    I'll help our struggling Mr Cook by referring him to former warmy Dr David Evans and a little production he made a little while back that is complete with actual data, including ERBE results. I hope this helps our budding scientist Mr Cook.

  2. It is my understanding that the tropical tropospheric hot spot is an indication of any global warming weather it be from the sun, CO2, PDO, etc. It is not just a finger print of CO2 warming but a finger print of any global warming, regardless of the cause. The AR4 reproduction above does not show the Tropical hot spot due to the sun because they did not expect the sun to provide any change in warming. If they did expect the sun to provide additional warming it would produce that red blotch in the middle of it's chart just like the CO2 prediction plot did. Of course neither produced any Tropical Tropospheric hot spot because all we have to look at in real life is the sum total of all the effects in the real world and none of them produced a hot spot!

    I think this is why Fred Singer claims that there has been no real global warming in the second half of the 20th century because THERE IS NO HOT SPOT THEREFORE NO WARMING. That is suppose to be climate science 101.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!