Congratulations to John Cook and his team for their paper demonstrating the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change:
They reviewed 12,000 papers: an enormous task.
Well done – now, lets see how the sceptics try to wave this away.
Conspiracy perhaps?
Watching the Deniers 
Not quite.
Cook’s survey found 97% of papers which *mentioned* global warming attributed it to humans, but that was only 32% of the papers surveyed.
Given the politicisation of the issue, its entirely possible a significant number of scientists in the large set of papers which didn’t mention global warming had different views, but decided to keep their heads down.
We already know a lot of lies have been told about the “consensus” – for example, this private email indicates that most solar terrestrial physicists did not support the consensus in 2000, at a time when claims of a consensus were being widely promoted.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3165.txt
There were a few good talks on the sun, but many were poor and few
of those present seem to take in what I was saying about the observations
and the paleo data, nor what Simon said about models and detection. Many
in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.
Eric bases his assertion about the collective view of solar terrestrial physicists on a sample size of one [1] anecdote from one [1] meeting at which most certainly not all solar terrestrial physicists were present…
Nice joking with ya,EW!
And of course he does not know there may be a difference between ‘many’ and ‘most’. ‘:Most’ will surely encompass 51-99%..’many’ can certainly involve fewer than 50% of STPs present.
In the end ,there is not much that can be drawn from E’s email dropping…just the dropping of it.
So,yes,Eric,you have just told one of the lies about the consensus…
Eric – this is a logic fail.
Poor Eric, reduced to spluttering.
Director, Oceans Institute at University of Western Australia
POSTS BY CARLOS DUARTE
The noise on the climate change debate has reached such level that my colleagues in the US, particularly scientists within Federal agencies, tell me that they avoid taking a position on climate change in public conversations and news releases
which would appear to be keeping their heads down not because of having different views but rather because of being viciously targeted by the nutters in the denier community.
Consensus is what deniers fear most. little wonder that they make stupid comments such as
” the large set of papers which didn’t mention global warming had different views, but decided to keep their heads down.”
the continual battle with cognitive dissonance must take a toll on their mental health.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111121115102.htm
Dear all – see the next post on the question of 32.6%
Reblogged this on 2012 And All That… The Fight Against Nonsense and commented:
Something I feel that bares repeating over and over again because people just don’t get it.
So that would be 97% of 32.6% would it?
Right…
Adding innumeracy to illiteracy to prove his faux sceptic credentials?
Good article. I absolutely love this website. Thanks!
Hey, you used to write magnificent, but the last several posts have been kinda boring?I miss your tremendous writings. Past several posts are just a little out of track! come on!
Giuseppe Zanotti Sale http://www.giuseppezanotti-sale.com
There may be noticeably a bundle to learn about this. I assume you made sure nice factors in options also.