I went over that a bit. It isn't a conspiracy so much as using data that fits your bias. I mean, the data is solid on there being 97% agreement. When you realize that is based on 2 poorly worded questions on a survey where they whittled it down to 79, then 77 people out of over 3000..... it looks like poor work. And it is. But you are not told that up front, just that 97% agree.I am still going through all this, but there is some interesting information there. Everything I've read says there's a 95% consensus that human "fingerprint" CO2 is the cause of global warming. I am having a hard time accepting 95% of scientists would be involved in a conspiracy or whatever. I can't rectify that.
Then you have a really, well, deliberately wrong paper written to support it. That turns out to be outright false. In fact, a well known skeptic had 10 papers or so in there, out of his 112. Cook had labeled them as supporting AWG, when they didn't. He was the one who really blew the whistle.
And if you go to NASA's, well the GISS website, it sites the Zimmerman and Cook papers.Richard Tol ✔@RichardTol
Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/References
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] 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.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
As I have linked to before (and there are many) http://www.populartechnology.net/201...cientists.html
(The bold is to complement the previous bit where Michael Mann and others now say models over warmed by 2.5 times, or nearly the entire feedback from water vapor in their calculations, leaving bare CO2 in the equation, at 1.1wm^2, just like the skeptics have been saying, and is in agreement with the 200 yo 'settled science')Nicola Scafetta
Ph.D. Physics
Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
There are a few scientists at that link that same very similar things about the miscatergorizing of the paper, and like I mentioned in review by outside parties the result is out of the 12,000 or so papers less than 1% endorse the warming.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg.../#3f9c7f281157
But, it is used by Nasa/GISS to prove that there is a 97% consensus.
Of course, Skeptical Science calls it robust. Because Cook runs Skeptical Science.