Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%
Cook et al. coded stove surveys, housing papers, and TV-news studies as AGW endorsement. The 97% figure is fraudulent and should be retracted.
Lewandowsky fraud
Lewandowsky’s moon-landing title is false: 3 of 1,145 endorsed both hoaxes. The paper slanders skeptics and should be retracted as scientific fraud.
How one paleo-participant can change the outcome of a study
A 32,757-year-old in Lewandowsky’s PLOS ONE file erased real age correlations. Minors stayed in; authors knew for a year and still reported false results.
The “hottest year on record” fallacy
On a temperature plateau, any year has a decent shot at “hottest on record.” That slogan does not refute a pause; some scientists botched the probability.
Data is often overrated
Invalid studies need no new data to be vacated. Logic can refute Napier & Jost and Lewandowsky; more numbers cannot rescue a validity collapse.
The climate science consensus is 78 – 84 percent (Updated)
Qualified surveys of climate scientists put attribution consensus at 78-84%, not 97%. Cook-style abstract ratings are not surveys and should not set it.