https://www.google.ca/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
So what this article essentially says is the studies which report 97% of scientists being in consensus used sample sizes that are either too small or too biased in some manner to be legitimate. Ok fair enough. However:
A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”
I want to point out that the American Meteorological Society only requires payment to join. You do not need a degree or an academic background. It is comprised of scholars and amateur weather enthusiasts alike.
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
This is a very reliable source. However the bolded portion shows they also could have opted for "not knowing." Additionally, 7/10 climate scientists firmly stating that recent climate change is anthropogenic is still a very solid figure.
A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
The article misrepresents those who support anthropogenic climate change as a vocal minority, when it is fair to say the
majority (though not 97%) of climate scientists are in consensus, and the detractors are the minority.
This article does a fine job of exposing small and misleading sample sizes but does not change the consensus. Thanks for sharing. I did not often use the 97% stat in my arguments but I will steer clear of it now.
