I read the whole thing. First of all, maybe the url of "business.financialpost.com" should be kind of a hint that this site has an agenda, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't really know what study they're referring to when they say this:
The most highly-cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position.
But this isn't really damning evidence anyway, since most scientific papers don't actually take a position. They say things like "We found that warming is occurring at a rate of x degrees per year, more research is needed to determine cause." Most scientific papers don't take specific positions themselves (because why would they? It's better to make observations, document the observations, and try to come up with solutions to the problem. That's what we did for CFCs, DDT and Acid rain, and we found solutions to those crises, and now the affected areas are recovering).
What the claim is:
97% of scientists who publish on climate change agree with human caused global warming (not meteorologists, not random people off the street, scientists who study on the issue agree. This is important because it's like a survey on evolution. If you poll the american public,
only 31% of people believe it. But if you poll evolutionary scientists (people who know what the fuck they're talking about), I'm sure the consensus is somewhere around 100% (
the consensus among all scientists appears to be 97%).
Okay, so, we've established the point that we're talking about climate scientists who've published on the subject, not a bunch of random assholes. If you don't like that survey mentioned in that article (still not sure which one they're referring to),
here's one from 2009. And
Here's one from 2010. Here's
one from 2013. And finally,
here's one from 2014 that comes up with 90%, but notes that the scientists that disagreed had questions about their particular expertise (published in a wide variety of fields unrelated to climate science).
The fact remains:
Of climate scientists who study and publish on the subject, 97% agree on human caused global warming. To deny this is the case is just plain wrong. Like the "Hillary Clinton is going to jail" thing you keep saying, It's just meant for propaganda and misdirection and it's a dumb thing to say.
And finally, because you're going to loop back to that argument that says "of course these scientists agree, their funding is at stake" I'm just going to repeat myself and say that there is far more financial and fame benefit to being the one guy who finds out that climate change is not happening than there is to being the 10,000th person to find out that it is happening.
Locked
