Science AMA Series: I am John Cook, Climate Change Denial researcher, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, and creator of SkepticalScience.com. Ask Me Anything!

That in my view is dishonest, given that the authors of papers who don't mention AGW probably agree with it in the same proportion as do the rest of publishing experts on the matter (a figure that even Richard Tol admit is in the "high nineties").

That statement in itself is dishonest. One cannot assume what the publishers (based only on their abstracts I might add) opinions are without them expressing it within the 66.4% of papers that show no opinions. That is blatantly and patently dishonest to push an assumption based on statistics on the other percentage of acceptance. There is no way around this. If you make the assumption that all or a majority of those 66.4% agree with AGW then you are bending the statistics to fit a view point allowing for the political disagreement from your perspective.

Trying to discredit the entire study based on this faulty interpretation smacks of political - not scientific - disagreement.

I am not trying to discredit the paper. I am simply trying to show that relevance is held within the entirely of the sample set and that the 97% is not necessarily a consensus among scientists, but a consensus of people who already agree on the topic. It would be like asking a bunch of Christians whether or not Jesus existed.

It would also mean that there would be less than 1% which oppose AGW. The ratio remains the same, still overwhelmingly in favor of AGW (which isn't surprising, given the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the theory).

This actually might be more accurate representation of those who oppose AGW. But that is still an assumption due to the fact that we cannot suppose that the 66.4% agree with AGW. It is not scientific to assume that they do, simple as that. You know that old saying about assuming?

/r/science Thread Parent