https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/ Cook’s 97% Scam Debunked Yesterday, we saw how easily debunked the original “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be. There therefore had to be a renewed attempt by the warmist establishment to make the claim stick, so step forward John Cook with a much more sophisticated scam. ...only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”. Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, so we find that the number of papers agreeing that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only a tiny 1.6%, far from the 97% claimed. ... It is clear that. from the very start, Cook and his colleagues were intent upon providing an eye-catching “consensus” which they could sell to the media, and which would be picked up by politicians and others in the establishment, regardless of what the evidence actually said. The reality is starkly different. After searching through 12000 scientific papers, spread over 20 years, all they could only come up with was 65 which supported the supposed consensus.
I don't find that a very convincing 'debunking'. It's like claiming almost nobody here thinks Lillard should be an all-star ever again. Why? Because very few people here have explicitly stated they do think he should be an all-star at least one more time. Yet if you took a poll - which the authors apparently did - you'd find that most people do expect Lillard to be a perennial all-star. barfo
The people making the 97% claim say 97% of all scientists. The number is based upon a selective sampling of a subsample of publications. The true number is 1.6%.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/ I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1]The “97% consensus” is now 43%. Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
Lots of people have said lots of things, but I don't think the original statement is 97% of ALL scientists. Sure it is, Denny. Sure it is. barfo
"The 97% consensus is really 43%" The original statement is 97%. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ NASA says so.
The 1.6% figure is what an honest survey of published papers yields. The 43% figure is actually asking the scientists the direct question. I've seen enough evidence that there is no consensus, and the 97% figure posed by many, including NASA, is a lie.
You are absolutely right, Denny. It's certainly true that only 1.6% of climate scientists believe in AGW. It's just that those 1.6% are so vocal (and so corrupt!) and everyone else is so incredibly timid because the 1.6%'ers control everything. It's very important to misinterpret every bit of data in order to validate your preconceptions, and you've done an admirable job of it here, as always. Bravo! barfo
No, barfo. The honest survey of the published papers speaks to how willing some scientists are willing to fudge data to get distorted results. Results which they hawk.
Which would be very different from getting paid by big oil to produce data to the contrary, wouldn't it? barfo
The dead zone forming off the coast of Oregon - is that in the direction of the sea or the land-mass?
