And this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Oh... the old 97% figure because a survey of scientific papers don't explicitly reject AGW. However only 1% of the same set of papers support AGW. Cook's survey with it's pie chart is nonsense. About as valid as this...
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Actually, no. The study found that 97% of the papers which expressed an opinion on the cause of Climate Change stated that the causes were anthropogenic. That is far beyond "not explicitly rejecting," it is actually a direct agreement.
"We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?" (emphasis mine) http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
Check your sources: "In fact, the Legate et al. paper seems to actually be a comment on an entirely different paper (Bedford & Cook, 2013) but then veers into a discussion of the Cook et al. consensus study. As a basic summary, the Legates et al. paper appears to essentially redefine the Cook et al. study and then point out that they got the wrong answer. Quite a remarkable strategy. You’re wrong because you didn’t do what we thought you should do." https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/
The Legate paper demonstrates conclusively how absurd Cook's methods and assertions are - that is the entire intent of the Legates paper. Criticizing the Legates paper for bring an inverse mirror of Cook's methods ("redefining the Cook paper") simply serves to demonstrate the absurdity of Cook's paper. What is your response to the hundreds of scientists who stated that Cook falsely classified their papers (stating they support AGW when the paper has no position on AGW)