.. so how did it go from 75% to 97%? Evolution?
7 minus 5 is 2. Take two 2s. Add of of them to the 7 and you get a 9. Add the other 2 to the 5 and you get 7. Put them together and, et voila, QED, you have 97. It’s the Democrat scientific method at work.
They silenced 22% of the scientists.
It was not a survey, the WSJ is ignoring reality. Here is the source of the 97% number:
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
12,000 peer reviewed articles were studied. The volunteer, cross-discipline team that studied these article included skeptics. They classified those articles as either taking a position supporting anthropogenic global warming, rejecting it, or being about global warming, but not taking a position either way. They found 4,000 took a position, 97% of which supported anthropogenic global warming. They ALSO sent surveys to the 8,500 authors of those 12,000 papers, and got 1,200 responses from authors, representing 2,500 papers. Those authors self-identified 1,400 papers as taking a position on global warming. Of those, again, 97% supported anthropogenic global warming.
So yes, the actual facts are the foundation for the often quoted number that 97% of scientists support global warming. But perhaps it should say 97% of RELEVANT scientists, so that people can’t just throw in employees of Exxon, petroleum engineers, etc. to skew the numbers.
Source:
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html