I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the5. Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
inanities of John Cook's paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has
written an extraordinary analysis of the data , which really has to be
seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper
involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see
where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest
rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans.
No other rating says how much humans contribute to global
warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much
humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused
most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this
requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+
examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is
smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7%(78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or
global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink
in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the
President of the United States, found more scientific publications
whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are
primarily to blame for it.
Read the whole thing.