Consensus is not 97% Gneissic and you know it. That stupid survey has been debunked a million times.
I would go as far as to say you know you are lying. !!
Furthermore despite what you might like to think, consensus means nothing. Real scientists want some proof.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
"
Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:
“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”
“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”
“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)
I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ‘97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.
“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.
There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not,
but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (
Doran/Zimmerman feedback)"
"
The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper
here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews
here,
here and
here
A closer look at ‘The Consensus on the Consensus’
Yet, I’m not aware of anyone having a detailed look at the actual reference for the ‘97%’ quotation cited in the Doran EoS paper – (
link and
press release), this was a students MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the Consensus” – M Zimmermann (
download here for £1.25 / ~$2), who was Peter Doran’s graduate student (and the EoS paper’s co-author)
“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)
As this MSc thesis was the original source of the oft cited Doran paper 97% quote, I tracked it down (sometime ago now) and discovered in the appendi that there was a great deal of email feedback and answers to write in questions from the scientists that actually participated in the survey, much of it
critical and sceptical of the survey itself, the methodology and the questions asked. Additionally, amongst those environmental scientists that responded, were some very sceptical sounding scientists with respect to man made climate change being the dominant driver of climate change.
“..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained.
Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory.
Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.
Believing their results is an act of faith…”
(
Doran/Zimmerman survey participant – App F)"
There is a lot more. Follow the link.
