[rktman]

Ruh Roh! Looks like Mr. Capazzola may be getting a visit from the Anti Denial Climate Change swat team for daring to point out that 97% of scientists that believe in AGW, believe in AGW. Or something. Anyone think this will get any widespread coverage? Crickets............

[Sasparilla]

When it comes to insisting their ideas like “climate change” be followed, they are creative liars.
On second thought, they are creative liars generally.

[Paladin2]

Cook is a crook and certainly NOT a scientist.

[Travis McGee]

[Lee'sGhost]

Old news, but can’t be repeated enough.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Let me know when NBC and the NYT run stories in this...

[Democrats hate too much]

So if we ask the other 2/3sof scientists if Global Warming exists then we would have 100% of scientists do not believe global warming happened due to man made causes. Might make a good tweet from Trump. It would make others have to explain themselves thus proving this 97% of scientists BS wrong... Trump should tweet 100% of scientists do not believe climate change is real and reference the same article Obama did.

[DUMBGRUNT]

Try,Nine out of ten tasters prefer Coke over Pepsi.

Just wait and see what the FTC has to say?

[sdpatriot]

this is the same method hillary and obama used to describe US made weapons confiscated in mexico. it eventually was revealed that the number (don’t remember it off hand) was in actuality a percentage of a percentage. iow - they freaking lie

[boycott]

The right doesn’t usually respond well to global warming questions.

Instead of saying, “I don’t believe in global warming.” They should always start with “I believe in having a clean environment. Me and my family enjoy the outdoors. Future generations should be left with a clean planet. However, the science of global warming isn’t conclusive. There has to be a balance ........ yada ... yada ... “

Liberals try to make conservatives look like they don’t care if we have a clean planet. That’s not true. It’s just that we’re not all buying into their junk science.

[Dick Bachert]

[arthurus]

There is a certain element of tautology at play. Scientists are defined as those who support AGW or Man Caused Climate Change.

[SES1066]

Query to the climate-change believers;

How much are you willing to spend EXTRA to make a change? How much are you willing to be taxed EXTRA? How far do you want to change your way of life for this 'cause'? Are you willing to condemn the impoverished to continuing poverty in the name of this cause?

Are you aware that if all the proposals from the Paris Accord of 2015 were carried out in full, the participants THEMSELVES project a decrease in the temperature growth of 1 degrees by the year 2100 (+4.5 to +3.5)? This after a cost of Trillions of $?

[r_barton]

It will be a cold day in hell when we really have global warming. Or something like that. ;-) It’s all a big con.

[Techster]

If I understand this correctly,
97.1% of 32.6% concur with the AGW position. That is 31.65%.

So 31.65% = 97% That sound like common core math.

[sauropod]

.

[justa-hairyape]

Funny that, when I read and reference scientific papers, I throw any that even mention climate change or global warming into the trash can. Makes it easy to filter out the fraudsters.

[PLMerite]

“Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

Papers that mentioned the search words, but what were they otherwise about? Papers by whom, climatologists, what?

[Jim Noble]

I would think that 100% of “scientists” would agree with the statement, “the climates on Earth are changing constantly”.

[Chaguito]

This was a big part of the “denier” documentary “Climate Hustle.” People who don’t know the scientific stuff told me that this was the most effective argument in the movie.

[Enchante]

"Bottom line: In the actual study in question, only one-third of the 11,994 academic papers studied could be construed as arguing for man-made warming"

Actually, the situation is even more appalling than that. The vast majority of the papers (the merely 1/3) that were rated as "pro" on the AGW hypothesis did not argue for or provide any evidence to substantiate the reality of AGW, they merely assumed it (as part of the cultural milieu).

So Cook et al. fund that only a VERY small proportion of the 11,994 papers they purport* to have examined actually pretend to provide any EVIDENCE for AGW. The "97%" figure is an appalling lie on several levels.

* I say "purport" because it also turns out that their methodology was so shoddy and their actual ratings practices were so bad that nothing they say in their "study" can be believed.