Keep in mind that ONLY 65 SCIENTISTS make up the 97% ~ I believe there are more scientists in the world that think Tupac is alive.
Some more information via The Lid:
…At one point in the exchange Sen. Cruz mentioned that the study, which concluded that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change hypothesis, was bogus. He was totally correct. The results of the study which declared the near unanimity was totally misrepresented by the study’s author and the media.
The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, and friends under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and according to Watts Up With That when the source data for the study was published on line the University of Queensland got so worried, they threatened a lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal.
The way the study was conducted was Cook and his buddies looked at peer reviewed studies and classified them a either agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothesis. The 97% figure was really 97% of the studies they reviewed. However investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them
Popular Tech. looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American, reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%.
Watts Up With That has a story on this, as well as well as more information found at Climate Depot.
