Much weight has been, and still is being applied, to the “97% consensus” claim, in order to support the “validity” of ‘humans are causing global warming’. This claim is in fact not valid, this post explains why.
” I didn’t intend to follow up on this comment, but this morning I saw a quote from Dana Nuccitelli that was impossible to resist:
“We were always careful to say that while the survey involved 12,000 abstracts, the 97 percent consensus was among the ~4,000 abstracts that took a position on the cause of global warming (plus the roughly 1,400 of 2,100 self-rated papers taking a position). And we were careful to point out that the consensus was that ‘humans are causing global warming.
Nuccitelli says he and his co-authors always used a particular phrasing when describing their results. I must admit, that is true. They’ve always managed to say “humans cause global warming” with the implicit qualifier of “some” (that they knew nobody would pay attention to). It’s obvious they knew the limitations of their results and didn’t want to be accused of lying.”
- Global Warming Causes Warm/Cold, Wet/Dry, Bigger/Smaller Lobsters (climatedepot.com)
- Revealed: Guardian climate blogger works for EPA, wind, solar contractor without disclosure (junkscience.com)
- Human Beings Responsible For Potentially Catastrophic Global Warming. (climatism.wordpress.com)
By Paul Homewood
John Cook’s little paper, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” has attracted much attention in recent weeks.
Yesterday an essay by Brandon Shollenberger , which accused the authors of “laundering lies”, made me realise that an important issue seems to have escaped our attention.
[As I say, much has been written on the subject, so bear with me if this particular issue has already been flagged up]
View original post 1,154 more words