To me, the various 97% papers show that people will believe in statistics that are not properly obtained. It also highlights the fact that most proponents are not sceptical enough to read any of those surveys. Many here can't tell one from another.
They might well have the right answer but they all got it by the wrong, and in my view, dubious means.
This raises questions over how many other papers in the climate arena are not what they claim to be and how unsceptical many people, including scientists, are.
For instance, the Cook et al paper claims over 97%. The data they used shows 0.3%. Their answer may be right but shouldn't the data back it up? Why, nay WHY? do mainstream scientists not point out that problem? Why is the University of Queensland threatening to sue someone who has found some of the Cook et al data on the web?
The whole thing is not based on honesty, integrity, accuracy, objectivity, scepticism or science.
Why should I trust anything related?
If 97% or something in that vicinity (by most popular and common sense definitions of "consensus," 97% is surely too low, not too high as Pegminer, evidently with nothing but an anecdotal sense somehow more attuned to the state of thinking of 15-20 years ago, continually insists, but it is a trivial detail) is NOT correct, then there has to have been a conspiracy of Cosmic and Millennial Billyian proportions. As you realize well enough, few anti-science kooks are honest enough to admit this, and here in the crackpot backwater of denialdom at YA GW, most are too stupid or ignorant to realize it.
Your logic -with the counterfactual of 3% (supporting AGW as real, significant and mostly negative for homo sapiens)- is sound, but beyond the intellectual capacity of most current regular anti-science posters on YA GW.
Its only 78 Scientist according to Bernie Sanders at the Slumber party .
I've always thought that human beings being what they are, that the 97% value was a little high--but not that high and certainly in the ballpark. As much as "skeptics" pooh-pooh it, they have never come up with any survey of scientists that contradicted it--which is pretty strong evidence that it is accurate.
They did come up with a survey of mostly engineers and a few scientists with a much lower number, then tried to pawn it off as a survey of scientists.
EDIT: You're funny Hey Dook. Yes, my feeling is anecdotal--but it's driven by previously having an office in a building with perhaps 50-100 climate scientists (depending on who you count) and having annually attended both the AGU and AMS conferences. Considering the margin of error in polls I don't really find my "anecdotal" beliefs to be unreasonable.
Of course there would be great comments and objections from scientific orgs, they would'nt want to see their funding going down the drain.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
I have seen so many B.S. papers from anything from butterflys to bird migrations, all having some global warming thrown in to make sure it gets published.
without global warming these people might have to do some real work.
If you believe that then you'll believe anything.
Try asking them about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
Billions of people believe that a Man died, rose from the dead, hung out with his posse for a couple of weeks and then lifted off the ground and flew upward into heaven. Belief is a wonderful thing, but scientifically collected data and the Laws of Physics still rule. Excess incoming solar radiation that's unable to exit the earth's atmosphere because of an increasingly robust CO2 index caused by burning fossil fuels has to go somewhere.
As heat energy moves from a 'warm' venue to a cooler venue as per 6th grade science we don't see a rapid warming of the atmosphere... we do see a warmer ocean and a lot of melting ice. If you believe in the Man died and came back to life story, and many do, why is it so hard to 'believe' the data collected by thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities and dozens of countries? That's the real mystery!
What would be the response of the world’s scientists, scientific organizations, and research and educational institutions if they did not agree that the “97% consensus” estimate was approximately correct?
If the situation was reversed and the media began reporting that the scientific consensus was 3%,does anyone honestly believe that if there would be no comment or objection from the world’s scientific community?
