Explaining 97% Draws Liberal Fire



Originally I posted this on YouTube, but I had to share the first comment I got:

“Dirty liar. That’s not what consensus refers to. The consensus is not some random survey or “belief” among “all” scientists, it comes from meta-analysis of relevant peer-reviewed scientific publications (which obviously are based on measured FACTS) and how many of those identify human activity as the main cause for the global warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I answered:

First of all, why is it anyone who disagrees with your kind is called a Dirty Liar? Having said that, the link you used is why I first started doubting the 97% crap years ago. It’s Cook’s site and he tells us how he did the study.

In it, he says:: “…(Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” Cook found over 97% “TAKING A POSITION” That is what Prof Hayward said. One third of 11,000 took a position. Using round numbers, that’s 3,666 who TOOK A POSITION.

Then, as your link and Cook tells us: “In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.”

The second study was made by sending recipients of the first who responded, (3666) an email. Then 2000 responded and 97% of them took a position of agreeing in AGW believing in man made GW.

That, in round numbers, approximately 1940 of the original 11,000. That’s about 19% of the original 11,000. NINETEEN PERCENT!!!!

Go back and re-read what I just quoted from YOUR link! It justifies every word Frof. Hayward said. I hope you notice I didn’t call you stupid.


You really need to expand your research when discussing anything. For starters try watching this, “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j46mnIcz330&t=2s” Lastly, as far as all the other studies he mentions, they all feed on each others studies and I wouldn’t give you a dime for them.