Verified answer

Obama said global warming is true,so obviously it is the exact opposite cause Obama isn't a scientist,just a very excellent liar,the end!

The survey by Australian global-warming activist John Cook, released recently with a massive media sendoff, is rapidly melting, as scientists and statisticians subject it to analysis. And now it's leaking out that Cook’s e-mails show he was scheming on this fraudulent survey to promote a leftist political agenda for well over a year. Cook made a big media splash in May with the publication of a study by him and several co-authors claiming to prove that climate scientists overwhelmingly support the theory that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels. Cook’s claims received their biggest boost on May 16, when President Barack Obama tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

Unless any one suggests that C + O2 does not offer you CO2, that carbon dioxide will not be a greenhouse fuel, that we do not burn fossil fuels, and that the legal guidelines of thermodynamics are unsuitable, i could not fairly care ... Maxx: you might be accusing folks of scientific fraud. Best. Go and ask cook dinner. Go and email him. Go and accuse him of fraud in person rather than hiding in the back of anonymity. What cook has to say isn't valuable to the basic science. I've yet to see any argument that manages to address the above points. Science operates on what that you would be able to prove. Prove the above and i'll take heed to you. Unless then, dancing on the periphery of the predicament looking to ranking elements by using no longer inspecting the science however things like 'the consensus' only serves to persuade folks like me that you've got made up your intellect and will not alternate that view regardless of how much evidence is awarded or how huge the epic failure of skeptics and deniers to provide an explanation for what we discover may also be.

Ben Pile has a great commentary here: http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/...

The most notable thing I picked up is this comment from Mike Hulme, who is very definitely not a skeptic:

"Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?"

The whole thing is a hot mess. We've got skeptics like Roy Spencer laughing that they are included in the 97% and warmists like Richard Tol who is not laughing that his paper was mis-categorized.

The consensus in general is a useless artifact and the 97% fake number keeps appearing over and over like eventually it's going to have some meaning. Well this last time around was so poorly done that members of their own team are piling on.

For Cook, Nuccitelli, Abraham, etc. I guess they're getting off on a little publicity (more like notoriety). My prediction is that these amateurs are going to fall and fall hard (which of those three are climate scientists again??). If AGW ever goes south and they start pointing fingers, guess who's going to be in the headlights?

This is beyond science and reason and discussion. It's now full on comedy (well for Cook et al at least).

_____________________________________________________________

Edit@Climate Realist: "Regarding Roy Spencer, why do you think that the number isn't 100%?"

a. 100% doesn't sound credible, nobody would buy it.

b. You'd only need to find one scientist to falsify it.

c. Past studies stated 97% so it sounds like a confirmation.

"Typical denialist lies."

You do realize that Mike Hulme is nothing close to a denialist?

At one point 97% of the living scientists on earth knew the planet was flat and a man would die from lack of oxygen if he traveled more than 30 MPH.

Science is nothing if not evolving and fallible.

As a scientists, I have always figured the number was closer to 50% and that was only when the question was worded in a less alarmist way. It isn't surprising to me that Cook would cook his books.

Typical denialist lies. Since you can't support your position with science, shoot the messenger by resorting to slander.

Regarding Roy Spencer, why do you think that the number isn't 100%?

In short, lets just say that warmons are politicised liars who are full of shite and will resort to any lie to advance their political agenda.