If you are looking for "good flat earther numbers", then you should definitely avoid the place where you found the claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [anthropogenic global warming]" ...
The claim that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) comes from a paper titled "
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". That paper reviewed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific articles - not the articles themselves, but just the abstracts of those articles (an abstract is a brief one-paragraph summary of an article). In fact, if you read the abstract of the paper itself (i.e., the one claiming that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming), it says the following (bold emphasis added):
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So ... it turns out that 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent explicitly rejected it, and 0.3 percent explicitly expressed uncertainty -
while 66.4 percent expressed no position on AGW at all.
IOW:
Two-thirds of of the abstracts examined had no opinion on the matter.
So where does that 97 percent figure come from? They calculated it by counting
only the abstracts that explicitly expressed a position (either acceptance, rejection or uncertainty). If you add up 32.6 + 0.7 + 0.3, you get 33.6. And 32.6 is 97 percent of 33.6.
IOW:
In order to arrive at that 97 percent figure, they completely ignored the 66.4 percent that took no position at all
THIS is how you lie with statistics ... THIS deceitful bull$#@! is how you turn 32.6 percent (less than one-third) into 97 percent ... THIS is how you dupe useful idiots into thinking that you have some kind of overwhelming "consensus" when you don't actually have any such thing ...
And look at that statement I bolded in the abstract I quoted above. Notice how it doesn't say that AGW is the "consensus" position
because 97 percent of abstracts endorse AGW. Rather, it says that AGW
just is the "consensus" position - and that 97 percent of abstracts happen to endorse that supposedly already-existing "consensus". So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers ...
But what's really ironic here is the fact that your claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [AGW]" could instead be stated as "less than 1 percent [...]" - since according to the study your claim is based on, only 0.7 percent explicitly
rejected AGW, But of course, putting it that way would leave you stuck with having to admit that only 32.6 percent explicitly
accepted AGW - instead of the much more impressive-sounding 97 percent. And 32.6 percent (less than one-third) just doesn't sound like that much of a "consensus", now does it ... ?
Anyway, once you account for the two-thirds of abstracts they simply ignored because it didn't suit their purposes to count them, the only thing you can say about the "scientific consensus" on this issue is that
it simply does not exist - 66.7 percent either take no position or express uncertainty.
There's your only "consensus" ...
In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.
Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.
No, it is not. In fact, just the opposite has happened.
During the 20-year period around 1980 to 2000, the average global temperature increased by about 0.4°C - which was more or less in line with some of the models predicting "catastrophic" global warming. But in the two decades since then, the temperature stopped increasing while greenhouse gasses continued to increase steadily. According to the "catastrophe" models, the average global temperature was supposed to continue increasing by about 0.2°C per decade, precisely because of those steadily increasing greenhouse gasses. But is has not done so, and "The Pause" (as it is called) has yet to be adequately explained by any of the "catastrophe" models. The average global temperature has fallen below the levels predicted by 95 percent of the "catastrophic" climate model forecasts. In other words, almost all of those models have been falsified (only a few have not, and if global temperatures don't start increasing again in the next five to ten years or so, those remaining models will be falsified, too).
So ... the "climate change" alarmists make and use broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ... yet, we are told that the science is "settled" and that those who are skeptical of "climate change" alarmism are just crackpot "deniers" who are not to be given any "air time" ,,, and all because there is a "consensus" among the makes and users of those same broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ...
It has not been shown that that is how it stands. See all the above, just for starters.
Connect With Us