|I met a fool in the forest, a motley fool!|
I met a fool i’ the forest, A motley fool.
I mean, if someone said 'two plus two equals five', would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said 'two plus two equals four'?
has been through one of the most rigorous peer-reviewed processes it can go through.
The science community is now essentially speaking with one voice.
In your paper you define the consensus position as being: "That humans are causing global warming." That consensus position is defined in your categories by category 1 of Table 2 which I have already quoted. The rest of your categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW. However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate you selected you discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for YOUR definition of the consensus that: "Humans are causing global warming." That’s 1% not 97%.