There is no "97% consensus", except in the minds of the believers. http://dailycaller.com/...s-on-global-warming/


Your using an article from a right wing reporter in The Daily Caller to refute the overwhelming majority of scientists?

You're kidding, right?

That 97% figure has debunked numerous times by numerous people. So much so that I thought people stopped saying it.

Google is your friend.

Just google it.

Just did. How about the NASA site since it came up first. Or is that too "fake news" for you?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Read it...

https://www.forbes.com/...-wrong/#46fc50583f9f

Forbes vs NASA? A populist pro business writer with a B.A. in Philosophy. He's not a scientist nor does he even have any kind of science education. No credibility IMHO.

Duffy wrote:

Care to point out any factual errors in the story?

And it doesn't take a special kind of climate scientist to verify the accuracy of a poll claim.

For example, we know the gender wage gap is bs without the help of climate scientists.

There is little doubt that humans are effecting the climate of our planet. I don't understand why you are always in such denial.

Do you also believe the world is flat?

To quote from the article I posted:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.


I will take their word for it. There is little doubt that humans are effecting the climate of our planet. I don't understand why you are always in such denial. Do you also believe the world is flat?

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.