Don't you see that if you pose your survey questions or pick and choose certain aspects of a report or for that matter choose the peer-reviewed abstracts that will support your consensus the results tell you nothing?<quoted text>
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013)."
"On the pages of the Guardians environment blog, Dana Nuccitelli (who is not a climate scientist) compiled a list of what he thought were Neils mistakes.These are your climate errors on BBC Sunday Politics, he proclaimed. But half of Nuccitellis rebuttals related to Neils treatment of the study into the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change, co-authored by Nuccitelli, which represents (according to the study) the views of 97% of scientists. Davey had cited the study during the interview, but Neil had said that it had been largely discredited.
(M)any sceptics have pointed out that the 97% figure encompasses the arguments of most climate sceptics. In evidence to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee last week, Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who is routinely vilified for his apparent climate scepticism, claimed that his arguments fell within the 97% definition. Here in the UK, climate sceptic blogger and author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, Andrew Montford tweeted in the wake of the survey,isnt everyone in the 97%? I am. This prompted Met Office climate scientist, Richard Betts to poll the readers of the Bishop Hill blog,Do you all consider yourselves in the 97%?. It seems that almost all do.
Just as Donald and Painters evidence to the STC reflected either naivety or a strategy, Nuccitellis survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends. The survey manifestly fails to capture arguments in the climate debate sufficient to define a consensus, much less to make a distinction between arguments within and without the consensus position. Nuccitellis survey seems to canvas scientific opinion, but it begins from entirely subjective categories: a cartoonish polarisation of positions within the climate debate."
A little skepticism is a good thing.