EDIT: I should add that all of these surveys are a waste of time. It's quite clear without doing any surveys that the great majority of scientists believe anthropogenic global warming to be real. Go to the major conferences (AGU, AMS, EGU) and you'll be hard-pressed to find scientists that disagree. I don't think the number is 97%, there is almost never that sort of consensus in any subject. From my own experience, I would think the number was more like 90+%. My advice would be to ignore the Cook-Nuccitelli paper, and definitely steer clear of populartechnology and James Taylor--and apparently also graphicconception's "Friends of Science".
pegminer it a libelous liar. Not a single paper has ever been misrepresent on my site. Alarmist have instead fabricated lies, misinformation and strawman arguments in relation to why certain papers were listed. It is easy to claim they are "misrepresented" when you fabricate a reason that has no relation to reality (strawman argument) for why they are there. Alarmists like pegminer are notorious liars who smear everyone they cannot debate honestly.
The Forbes article cites an investigative journalist piece we did that is 100% verifiable by emailing the authors quoted yourselves. Absolutely nothing about the article requires any such faith in the integrity of the website. This is how everything is presented on my site, fully cited and sourced so it can be verified.
It is disappointing to see the "Best Answer" be selected that includes outright libel.
If you understand what science is than you will understand that is has nothing to do with consensus. Science must be repeatable in a controlled environment with a control group to compare it to. It does not matter if there is a consensus unless it follows the scientific method it is, by definition not scientific. Any time you see the term "scientific consensus" it does not mean the article is fake, but it would make any real scientist suspect.
Before relativity was proven, there was a different scientific consensus.
Before Plate tectonics was proven same thing (there was actually consensus against it from the 20 to the60's until navy submarines proved it by mapping the earths crust even though the evidence was huge).
There was a consensus in the 70's that humans were causing an ice age, not kidding look it up.
Forbes is a credible publication, and there is a vast literature out there of "scientists" faking reports to get their political programs past.
Yes it is true.
In the most recent Cook et al (2013) survey they claimed that 97% of the surveyed abstracts said that man was more than 50% responsible for global warming. In fact, the raw data showed that only 0.5% of abstracts claimed that. (When the papers in that 0.5% were examined it seems that the right answer should have been 0.3%.)
There have been several supposed surveys on the consensus. The story has been summarised here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...
How anyone can support any of those surveys and still claim to be a scientist is one of the reasons I remain a sceptic. They are all clearly flawed and anyone who disagrees is in denial. One was even co-authored by a famous climate scientist.
EDIT: Pegminer - Thank you for adding that the various consensus surveys are a waste of time. That is what the Friends of Science are saying as well. So you might not trust them but you seem to be agreeing. It still leaves me with the question: "Why would any genuinely sceptical scientist not dismiss these surveys as soon as they are mentioned?"
@realityshowjunkie - Just read one of the papers. The Doran and Zimmermann one is very short and easy to understand. Ask yourself what does question 2 really mean and why did they use the answers from only 79 or 77 scientists? You need to choose any selection criteria before you start analysing the results. If you don't you can make a survey say almost anything.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Dor...
@That guy: Ignore Heartland. Read the survey. Get it straight from the horse's mouth. Would that survey convince you that 97% of all climate scientists think that man is mainly responsible for global warming?
EDIT @CR: "Did you ever consider that your "picture" of John Cook could have been doctored? "It probably was but it was found on their own web site with several similar ones. Any doctoring would have been done by themselves. Cook is a cartoonist so he is well qualified. If memory serves, when they were discovered they were moved to another publicly accessible directory! Not the brightest bunch.
There have been a host of other articles exposing this fraud of 97% of the scientists believing in AGW.
There is more than one who tout this 97% of the scientists. They all have their qualifiers. One such poll that is most popular turned out it was 75 out of 77 scientists. That does not represent the world's scientists. It is far from honest to even say that. It only proves the weakness of the theory when grown men have to resort to such childish tactics.
Well I can imagine 97% of climate scientists agreeing, no climate change equals no job.
But the other thing is the way they address the survey, I am a confirmed skeptic, but if you asked me does CO2 warm, does man make CO2, do humans change the climate. I would have to say yes.
But if you ask me does CO2 make enough difference to harm the planet I would say NO.
By the way John Cook is a kook who dresses up in Nazi uniforms http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.451586304...
Climate Realist
It was doctored by John Cook himself he did not deny it, just accused people of hacking their site.
No he is a dumba** denier who has no climatology education. The consensus is among climate scientists who have published peer review papers
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
From your link
"Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science,"
When you see an ad hom like that, it is very likely that the article has no actual evidence to back up its claims.
Kano
Did you ever consider that your "picture" of John Cook could have been doctored?
And the hacker stole a bunch of passwords, including my own Yahoo password.
The source of that article is the Heartland Institute, thay can be relied upon to lie and keep on lying when others have given up
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
I thought that their was a consensus among scientist the climate change was human caused I just saw this. Is there any validity to the report?
