>> In fact it is more like 99%
Sure. If you're going to claim it is 97%, why not 99%?
>> They peer reviewed over 13,000 studies and all but a handful supported global warming.
Who "peer reviewed"? No one. What you're referring to is EIGHT (8) Global Warming scientists (who rely on the existence of global warming to feed their families) who "reviewed" (that is NOT the same as "peer review") these papers for specific criteria (again, not "peer" reviewed -- totally different thing).
By reviewed, they mean they read the abstracts. If you're familiar with scientific papers, you know that an abstract isn't the same as reading the damned paper.
Five leading climate scientists took Professor Cook to task in a paper published in the journal Science and Education. They claim Cook’s study misrepresented the view of the so-called “consensus” scientists. Here’s why: only 41 out of the 11,944 published articles on climate studies directly stated that mankind is the cause of global warming since 1950.
In other words, .3 percent, NOT 97 percent, blame global warming on man.
The study’s lead author, Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware was shocked by the way Professor Cook cooked the books, so to speak:
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”
Now, I have no illusions about you ignoring yet another post contradicting your 97% claim because you won't bother to read it and if you did, it doesn't say what you want to hear. But there it is. |
