Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles.

But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-cultists_794401.html?page=3http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article-------------97.1% of the 33.6% who endorsed AGW and had a position on it (66.4% expressed no AGW position), the actual non spun "consensus" is 32.63% - not even one out of three!

The Cone head goes down in flames yet again, having been proven to be a math incompetent, spin worshipper and wrong once again... as usual.