Then in 2013 there came a second 97 percent study “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in The Scientific Literature.” The results were presented to the general public in the Guardian by Australian staff writers John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. It was taken from the antithetically named website ‘Skeptical Science’ hosted by Cook and Nuccitelli. The investigation was done by, oh yes, Cook and Nuccitelli.
A follow-up article (rebuttal) titled “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” decisively rejects a supposedly near-unanimous consensus on the study of climate change and states that it is misleading and misinforming the public.
The paper by Legates et al, is by four senior researchers, with Dr. David LeGates, director of Climatic Research at the University of Delaware stating “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97 percent consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1 percent.”
The words of another Australian, Professor Brian J O’Brien, who had worked closely with astronauts on the Apollo missions make clear an underlying problem. Printed in Australia’s Herald Sun on July 24, 2011 was his lament on the science of climate change; “wildly exaggerated”...certainly not proven” and “sadly, no senior independent scientists in the field.” O’Brien’s next statement defines the problem “The funding for climate change research was only going to what you call true believers.”
In President Eisenhower’s farewell speech: “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and gravely to be regarded.” Or, as I was told by one scientist: “Say ‘climate change’ go past go and collect $200,000.”
In the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fourth report only 57 scientists of the reported 2,500 deal with attribution of change and some of them vehemently disagreed with the final draft for policymakers. In my opinion, the original mistake was made when the IPCC was assigned the question, “Has Carbon dioxide caused global warming.” The question should have been: “What factors may cause global warming?” It is hard to do unbiased research when the results may eliminate your job.