Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Le whirling dervish | Main | Tech issues »

John and Dana in trouble at school. Again. Josh 232

Click the image for a larger version

 Worth repeating from this post.

The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% "nonsensus" paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

The blog post at Nottingham University and the subsequent comments are well worth reading. 

(If you want to know where the 'Tree Hut' nickname comes from you can see its origins here)

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (20)

If you (Cook) are planning the media blitz and marketing of the 97% consensus project - WHILST you are analysing the papers. Just a tiny chance a bit of confirmation bias might slip in for the end result....(/sarc off)

"To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well." - John Cook

Jul 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

"97% Nonsensus". Very good Josh. In fact, have you cracked the terminology gap that emerged after the Bish mooted "empty shibboleth"? I think "the Nonsensus" could take a lot of the strain at the lower end of the market, allowing shibboleth to be used (as it was by Ben Pile) for the slightly more highbrow context. But what do I know? :)

Jul 26, 2013 at 5:38 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Steve Milloy coined nonsensus

Jul 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM | Registered Commentershub

Thanks Shub. I still think wider usage might get the point across better than more convoluted phrases.

Jul 26, 2013 at 6:03 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

It is a truly wonderful word! I do not believe in the nonsensus, do you? Priceless
We deny the nonesensus and proudly.

Jul 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Their catapult has been confiscated, too, I see...

Jul 26, 2013 at 8:56 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

I like the term 'Nonsensus,' However, if you think about it, there is also a hidden meaning in 'Consensus.'

Jul 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterOtter

Can you post the link to Hulme - the ones above are to BH and to a piece by Ben pile

Jul 26, 2013 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

Scratch my comment, I just realized it was a comment.

Jul 26, 2013 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

Mike Hulme says on the comment thread

'Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.'

Josh's cartoon is terrific, but the rebuke is equally directed at Ed Davey and generally by implication DECC and the whole Political Establishment (and also the Guardian :-)). The whole lot should be trooping down the corridor too.

Jul 26, 2013 at 10:20 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Excellent Josh. These guys are basically Guardian promotions. If their own 'journalists' won't lie, they must be desperate . The moustache is 97% accurate by the way.

Jul 26, 2013 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff


Cook and Dana?


They would enjoy "The Walk of Shame" immensely, love it, wear it as a badge, pose for the photos!

Whilst in the background there are a number of humble scientists, watching their performance and quietly sharpening the words that will ensure that their resultant paper cuts are the deepest.

Jul 27, 2013 at 1:09 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

The only thing to say about the Cook paper is that the man is a cartoonist.

(With all deference to Josh, cartooning is not a good qualification for information or sociological research.)

Jul 27, 2013 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJay Currie

Strikes me that the more serious end of the climate research spectrum might be getting a little bit tired of the antics of the less reputable end. Nothing like an internal fued to destroy the strength of a movement. Life of Brian anyone?

Jul 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterMax Roberts

Worst of all is the Guardian. Simply amazing how this paper has deteriorated. To have handed over the environment pages to Dana and Co! It was once a paper one could respect. Its like the editoriship has been handed over to the most rabid commenters in the comments sections. And if you notice the stuff that is deleted on the environment page? People seem to have their comments deleted just for explaining what the IPCC says about the mechanism and likely scale of warming from CO2.

Jul 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered Commentermichel

Another thumbs-up for "nonsensus".

Jul 27, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh.

'to Dana and Co!' ~ Michel

Should that be 'Dana and Oil Co'?

Jul 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterOtter

@michel "Worst of all is the Guardian. Simply amazing how this paper has deteriorated."

There's just no balance there since they banned me ;)

They are, however, quite unintentionally hilarious: see, for example, a recent story about the hot summer doing wonders for solar generation:

"According to calculations by the Solar Trade Association, record amounts of electricity will have been generated in the recent heatwave, with solar overtaking wind power for the first time."

So one pathetically small contributor to the nation's electricity overtook another pathetically small contributor, briefly, during a rare period of sunny weather, yet the Graun breathlessly report it as though it were some sort of significant turning point.

I think the Graun environment section writers live in some sort of parallel universe.

Jul 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

Some of these cartoons by Josh are quite brilliant and I would say very effective at making a serious point. It makes you wonder why Cook, the cartoonist, has not used his drawing 'skills' to push the alarmist message. Is it just possible his cartoon skills are worse than his scientific ones?

Jul 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn B

Is it just possible his cartoon skills are worse than his scientific ones?
Jul 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM John B

More than possible - sadly.

Jul 29, 2013 at 9:26 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>