Understanding science

Just so you are clear Tihachitu the profession which has been disgraced is SCIENCE.
Scientists used to be respectable.
Now they are known liars.According to other scientists.
In your defense.IMHO You are borderline.

 

HEY!

 

I am not quite sure what to make of that unscientific rant but, yes I said consensus, and no I didn't say 97%. I most certainly didn't say the american public beloved everything Mann has written.

Perhaps this article will lend some understanding.
How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Scientific American

Now the consensus I was talking about is a little higher bar and lower numbers, that human's have caused 50%+ of the recent warming. That again is fairly well established. Linzden commented that the data supports the first but he is unsure of the second. Curry agrees with both statements.

The scientific community is not in any disagreement about if ACC is happening, what skeptics get mad about is the false narative that they find the data compelling for Catastrophic Anthopologic climate change. There isn't a consensus there with scientists or the american voter.

Is 97.2% correct? IMHO its doubtfull.

As you can guess, I disagree with the way 97% has been bandied about, and agree with the real social scientits not blogger Cook, that using it as a clue by 4 will not help get consensus for action. But there is a large consesnus, just its difficult to find an exact number, and if we could it really wouldn't do science much good.

I don't have to tell anyone that has dealt in this type of thing, it was extremely poor experimental design. Then again cook is a evangelist and a blogger not a social scientist or a climate scientist. He got a lot of people to read his paper and blog.